Oral Answers to Questions

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Secretary of State was asked—

Microgeneration

Chris McCafferty: What plans his Department has to promote microgeneration in Government buildings; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks: The Government have set a challenging commitment for the UK to reduce our carbon emissions by 60 per cent. compared with 1990 levels by 2050. That affects us all, of course, and the Government have a full part to play. Indeed, the aim is to make the Government office estate carbon-neutral by 2012. Microgeneration technologies certainly must play their part in reaching that goal.

Chris McCafferty: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and take this opportunity to welcome him to the Dispatch Box in his new role? Naturally, I welcome plans to use microgeneration in Government buildings. However, does he agree that all public buildings should be subject to strict targets on microgeneration and that proper monitoring procedures and greater transparency should be put in place to make that possible?

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome—it is like I have never been away.
	The Government have allocated £86 million over the next three years for our low-carbon building programme. Phase 2 will enable such places as public buildings, community centres and buildings in the voluntary sector to have microgeneration. That is important. I am especially keen on ensuring that we have microgeneration in our schools, not only so that they are energy efficient, but so that we can teach our children about their relationship with energy, and energy's relationship with the future of our planet.

Regional Development Agencies

David Heathcoat-Amory: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of regional development agencies in promoting enterprise.

Patrick McFadden: The performance of the regional development agencies against their targets is laid before Parliament every six months. In 2005-06, the last year for which we have full-year figures, they helped to create or attract almost 19,000 new businesses, supported 800,000 businesses through Business Link, and assisted more than 166,000 businesses to improve their performance. Half-year figures for 2006-07 have been laid before Parliament and full-year figures will follow shortly.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The figures that the Minister quoted were largely self-assessed by the bodies themselves. The truth is that those bureaucratic bodies show very little enterprise. Does he agree that a great deal of good would be done for businesses, and a great deal of public money would be saved, if he were to abolish them? He could then return the money to businesses through a cut in business rates, especially for small businesses, which would benefit the many, rather than the few businesses that are favoured by regional development agencies.

Patrick McFadden: The performance of the regional development agencies is not judged only through self-assessment. For example, the National Audit Office assessed all regional development agencies as performing either well or strongly. Let me quote a random comment from its verdict on the East Midlands Development Agency:
	"emda has a strong vision for the region which has been developed and strengthened in successive productions of the...economic Strategy...emda's partnership working is a real strength, with an emphasis on building strategic delivery and in getting stalled projects to work again... The evidence base...is detailed and comprehensive and is well regarded by partners and stakeholders".

Charlotte Atkins: Will my hon. Friend investigate the different approaches of the RDAs to rural enterprise? For instance, the East Midlands Development Agency has supported an excellent farmers' co-operative initiative called Peak Choice, which was launched in my constituency last week. However, it appears that Advantage West Midlands—my constituency sits in the west midlands—is less willing to engage with rural developments and enterprise, even though Staffordshire, Moorlands falls within a rural action zone.

Patrick McFadden: Regional development agencies should be supporting business activity in both rural and urban areas. The output results for 2005-06 have been disaggregated on a rural and urban basis and can be found on the departmental website. I will be happy to take up my hon. Friend's specific question about Advantage West Midlands with the RDA on her behalf.

Peter Luff: On behalf of the yet-to-be-renamed Trade and Industry Committee and all its members, may I say how much I welcome the Minister and all his new and old friends, especially one old friend, to the Dispatch Box? Is the Minister aware of the Committee's recent report on UK Trade and Investment and its critical words about the failure properly to co-ordinate regional development agencies' work in overseas markets? What will be the role of another new friend, Sir Digby Jones? Will he be using all his traditional powers of tact and diplomacy to ensure that the regional development agencies are better co-ordinated in overseas markets?

Patrick McFadden: Comrade Digby, as we call him in the Department, will have a very important role to play. He has been outspoken on the issue, and I am sure that he will be a vocal and effective voice in ensuring a co-ordinated approach by RDAs working abroad.

Anne Snelgrove: I add my welcome to the new ministerial team. Does my hon. Friend welcome the Prime Minister's announcement earlier this week that there will be regional committees of Members of this House, and does he agree with me that that will strengthen the relationship between the House and the regional assemblies, particularly with regard to enterprise and the economy of our regions? Will he encourage Opposition Members to join in with those regional committees with full enthusiasm, despite their aversion to regionalism?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Such committees can play an important role. I shall just mention the kind of work that they could consider doing, in the context of current problems. For example, the RDA in Yorkshire moved very quickly in response to the recent floods; it has made £1 million available in business support. That is moving quickly, locally, in response to a local emergency. That is the kind of issue that could be examined productively by the committees that she mentions.

Julie Kirkbride: On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chairman of the Select Committee, will the Minister tell us what his new Department will do about the duplication that takes place in the RDAs' overseas activities? The simple fact is that to the Indian market, to take just one example, the United Kingdom is a very small place, and the differences between the west midlands and the east midlands, or the north-east and the south-west, are irrelevant to that market. We want business to come back to UK plc, and once it gets back here, we will decide where it goes. What will the Minister do about that particular problem, and that waste of money?

Patrick McFadden: As figures published this week show, the UK is performing extremely well in attracting inward investment from abroad. Of course we have a duty to make sure that our efforts are properly co-ordinated, but we would not accept a situation in which it was suggested that something was seriously hampering our efforts to attract inward investment; the record shows that we are an extremely attractive location. The hon. Lady mentioned India. She will know that the UK is home to about 60 per cent. of Indian inward investment in Europe. I think that we are performing well in the Indian market. I am sure that we could do better in that market and in others, and I assure her that my colleagues and I will do everything that we can to make sure that that is the case.

David Taylor: As a newly elected Labour and Co-operative MP in 1998, I was happy to serve on the Regional Development Agencies Bill Committee, in which we considered what later became the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. At the time, I received reassurances from Ministers that the RDAs would have a specific brief to encourage co-operative and community enterprises. There have not been too many signs of that, particularly in the east midlands, where an investigation is taking place, in which I played a part last week. Will the Minister look again at how best we can tap the potential of a principle whose time has come, in many ways?

Patrick McFadden: I agree with my hon. Friend that the co-operative sector is an important part of the economy, and it can be a very successful part of it—indeed, it is, in many ways. The RDAs should take that into account in their work, but I am happy to have further dialogue with him. The RDAs should be responding in a comprehensive way that supports all kinds of businesses, including co-operatives.

Postal Services

David Jones: If he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office and Royal Mail.

John Hutton: We are committed to securing the long-term future of both Royal Mail and the Post Office. We have made substantial investments available to Royal Mail on commercial terms and, subject to European Community state aid clearance, we will provide substantial further support for the Post Office, in order to provide a comprehensive and accessible national network.

David Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposed post office closure programme is likely to hit rural areas disproportionately hard? For many people living in villages such as Llansannan, Llanfair Talhaiarn and Llangernyw in my constituency, the post office is frequently the only convenient means of access to financial services. Will the Secretary of State say how he reconciles his Government's aim to combat social and financial exclusion with a proposal that, if fully implemented, may well put financial services out of reach of people in such areas?

John Hutton: What the hon. Gentleman says is right. We all recognise the importance of sub-post offices to the social infrastructure of our country, particularly in rural areas. I, too, represent a constituency that includes a substantial rural area. However, we cannot hide from the reality of what is happening in the post office network. Customer behaviour is changing. People are not using the post offices in the same way that they did, and we cannot hide from that fact. What we are proposing, with the compensated closure plan and the new outreach locations, is a sensible strategy to deal with the change. I understand that Opposition Front-Bench Members have recognised that the current network is not sustainable, as has the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to work with us. I hear what he says about concerns about rural areas. I think we have addressed them, but I am rather surprised that he chose not to take part in the recent consultation exercise about the future of the post office network affecting his constituency.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did not take part.

David Lepper: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. We are all aware that the deal between Post Office Ltd and WH Smith in relation to some Crown post offices is a done deal, but will he use his good offices to ensure that before those transfers take place, the Post Office and WH Smith have full regard to disability access to the relocated branches? I give the example of the WH Smith branch in Churchill square, Brighton, where the relocated post office will be in the basement, where the lift has been out of order for the past three weeks and where, although there is a down escalator, there is no up escalator. I suspect the same is true of many other branches.

John Hutton: I am very sorry about the problem with the escalators in my hon. Friend's constituency. Let me make it clear to him and to other hon. Members who have perfectly reasonable concerns about the issue that there is very clear legislation about the need to ensure that premises such as post offices and Crown post offices are accessible to disabled people. It will clearly be the responsibility of the franchisee—WH Smith, in this case—to make sure that all its premises are fully accessible to disabled people.

Alan Reid: There is unfair competition between private mail operators and Royal Mail, because the private operators are able to cherry-pick the most profitable areas. In order to even up the market, would the Government consider imposing a levy on private mail operators who do not fulfil the universal service obligation, and use the money to help fund Royal Mail for delivering in remote rural areas and islands?

John Hutton: No, we will not impose additional levies as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is the responsibility of the regulator to make sure that all these issues are properly addressed and the universal service obligation is properly implemented. There are significant benefits for all of us in a more liberalised, competitive postal market, and we will do all we can to ensure that those benefits reach businesses, customers and eventually taxpayers.

John Grogan: How do the Government intend to fulfil their manifesto commitment to review the operation of the Postal Services Act 2000 and the impact of market liberalisation?

John Hutton: We will keep all these matters fully under review. We are strongly behind the liberalisation of the postal sector. In the long term it will be in the best interests of British business, consumers and taxpayers. If my hon. Friend wishes to come and discuss any aspects of these matters with me, he is more than welcome to do so.

Bob Neill: The number of post offices in my constituency has been exactly halved, from 22 to 11, in the past seven years. Now the Post Office in another WH Smith deal proposes, in this case, to put the Crown post office upstairs rather than in a basement, but again with a one-way escalator and a lift at the back of the building, which may suit WH Smith but does not suit my constituents, yet two further post offices are ear-marked for possible closure in the latest round of consultations. What faith can my constituents have in the consultation process or in the words of the Minister's earlier reply, given that in his previous incarnation he was significantly responsible for taking away a great deal of the work that kept small post offices going—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is annoyed about the matter.

John Hutton: I understand some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I am slightly surprised that a Conservative Member is making those accusations, particularly about the failure of the Post Office to win business in a competitive marketplace. He seems to be urging Ministers to give the Post Office business on terms that are not advantageous to consumers and to business. That would be a completely unacceptable state of affairs. There will be a full and open consultation in the hon. Gentleman's area, and I urge him to take part in it. Let me remind him of some of the facts that he overlooked. During the period of the previous Administration, nearly 3,500 post offices were closed without any type of agreement on consultation or on ensuring proper and appropriate access to the remaining branches of the network. There are difficult decisions that we have to take. My view is that we should not hide from them or duck them; his view seems to be that we should do both.

Chris Ruane: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right when he said that the Welsh Tories, and indeed the Welsh nationalists, did not take part in the Department of Trade and Industry review of post offices, although they use it as a political football. By contrast, Welsh Labour MPs have convened four meetings, including with credit unions, high street banks and, next Tuesday, the Welsh Local Government Association. In our meetings, we have come to the conclusion that there needs to be greater co-ordination between all those organisations. What measures will he take to improve that co-ordination between the various Departments and agencies that have an influence on the Post Office?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He clearly makes the point that it is incumbent on all of us on both sides of the House, whatever party we represent, to address the reality of the situation, including the commercial reality of the difficulties that the post office network is facing—it is currently losing £4 million a week. We have a choice: we can either engage seriously in the consultation process, as are my colleagues, I am glad to say, or we can run away from the issues. In Government, I will do all that I can to co-ordinate across a variety of interested Departments a proper response to the challenge that the Post Office faces. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support that sensible process.

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware of Royal Mail's proposals on zonal pricing, which are being considered by Postcomm. He will also be aware that there is already a problem with parcels in remoter and island areas of Scotland, and many fear that zonal pricing will lead ultimately to an attack on the universal service obligation. It is only for business mail at the moment, but it could be extended later to all mail. Will the Government stand by the universal service obligation and not allow that zonal pricing scheme?

John Hutton: We do stand by the obligation—in fact, it was put into primary legislation as recently as 2004. Postcomm is responsible for dealing with all these issues; that is the settlement that Parliament legislated for. We should let the regulator make these decisions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and discuss any particular concerns with me or my ministerial team, he is welcome to do so.

Andy Reed: While liberalisation might be good for Royal Mail in the long run, is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that many of the cost-cutting measures that are taking place at the moment are creating for local businesses? For example, Jackson Coachworks in my constituency requires its post by 9 o'clock in the morning in order to do its business but is not getting it until at least midday, and sometimes in the early afternoon. Will he use his good offices to be in contact with Postcomm to ensure that the service that businesses require to carry on day by day is delivered on the ground?

John Hutton: Yes, we will certainly do that. We keep a careful watch on all these matters. However, Royal Mail now operates in a highly competitive marketplace, and if it is not delivering the service that its business customers want, there are probably other companies that will. It therefore has a simple set of choices ahead of it—to be responsive to the needs of its customers or lose business.

Charles Hendry: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. We always found his predecessor to be helpful, engaging and courteous—although, sadly, utterly misguided in the policies that he proposed for the Post Office, which threatened to close a third of the network.
	Is the Secretary of State aware that it costs Royal Mail 25 per cent. more to operate its services than it costs its competitors, that it is 40 per cent. less efficient, and that any attempts by the trade unions to prevent the modernisation of the service will result only in Royal Mail becoming less efficient and ultimately cost more jobs in the long run? Does he agree with his new friend, Comrade Digby, who is no doubt learning the words to "The Red Flag" as we speak, that the current mail strike is about "last century issues", and why does he think that that statement has made many Labour peers think that he should not be a Minister and may be a loose cannon pointing in their direction?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words—that is probably as good as it gets. In fact, I heard Comrade Digby singing the words of "The Red Flag" this morning as I passed his office; he had perfect pitch, too.
	The hon. Gentleman is concerned about a genuine problem, and we must all want the current wave of industrial action that is affecting Royal Mail to end quickly. We all hope that that will happen. It is not in the interests of the company or the business for the industrial action to continue. Talking, not strikes, resolves disputes. I hope that that is clearly understood.
	On the wider point in the question, the hon. Gentleman said that at least 1,000 sub-post offices needed to close. Perhaps it would be helpful in the course of our exchanges if he could assist us to identify them.

Nuclear Power

Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the future contribution he expects nuclear power to make to the production of electricity in the UK.

John Hutton: Nuclear power stations provide about 18 per cent. of the UK's electricity, but most of them are set to close over the next two decades. The only way in which to meet the dual challenge of climate change and security of supply is by ensuring as wide a choice of low carbon options as possible, which, in the Government's preliminary view, should include nuclear. We are currently consulting on that proposition.

Michael Jack: May I, too, add my words of welcome to the Secretary of State to his post and for the positive nature of his answer? However, welcome the consultation exercise is to those who produce most of the nation's nuclear fuel at Toshiba Westinghouse in my constituency, there is concern about what happens from 2008, when the results are made public. The Government said that, in 2008, they will announce a call for applications to justify new nuclear power stations. To give certainty to those companies that are now expressing genuine interest in investing in new nuclear facilities, will he undertake, as part of the response to the consultation exercise, to set out a clear set of milestones that map out the decision-making process from now on?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I know exactly where he is coming from on the issue. We have conducted a preliminary review of the role of nuclear. It is important in the current circumstances for a full and proper consultation to take place on the right way forward. I agree that it will be important for the industry—and all of us—to have a clear sense of the timetable. I hope to set it out later this year.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) because planning is crucial. I want to encourage my right hon. Friend to examine the educational provision for nuclear training because, as he and I know, there is currently little capacity for technical or academic competence in nuclear matters. To get it right, the institutions with competence in the subject need early advice and support to develop the courses that we need.

John Hutton: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and I agree with her about the importance of skills to the energy sector. Clearly, that is now a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, but I assure her and the House that we shall work closely with him on finding the right way forward.

Lembit �pik: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and look forward to helping him and the Government do a better job in the new Department than they would do without the sage counsel of the Liberal Democrats.
	My father was a nuclear physicist but he never convinced me of the case for nuclear power. What is the cost per kilowatt of nuclear power when decommissioning operations and the management of nuclear waste are taken into account?

John Hutton: We have set out a range of information and details about all those matters in the recent consultation document and other publications. The document made it clear that, if there is to be new nuclear, the industry must meet the costs of decommissioning and waste management. There is no question of the taxpayer being involved.
	I generally welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. We now have a star gazer as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and that is a huge improvement on the usual navel gazing that we get from them.

Andrew Love: There remains considerable public concern about the storage of nuclear waste. What progress is my right hon. Friend making in establishing the scientific case that such storage is safe and secure? What further consultation is he carrying out with the public to reassure them that this can be done at a cost that is reasonable for the country?

John Hutton: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. He will be aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently published a consultation document on precisely these issues. I have no doubt that they will also surface as we take forward the consultation on the nuclear document for which my Department has responsibility. All these issues have to be fully aired and addressed in the consultation exercise, and we should proceed only in the light of the information and the best evidence about what is in the best interests of our country for the long term.

Mark Field: What importance does the Secretary of State attach to energy security, which he mentioned in his initial comments? In particular, will his Government firmly make the case that we need to be less reliant on oil and gas from Russia and Ukraine and on oil from the middle east?

John Hutton: This is an enormously important issue to which we attach great significance. We need not only to take into account the threat of climate change but to make absolutely sure that future generations of people in this country have confidence in the security of our energy supply. There is an increasing role for renewables, and we will aggressively pursue that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned fossil fuels; let us take gas as an example. Some people think that we can significantly increase the use of gas as a source of energy, but that would clearly expose us to energy security risks in the future, because it would have to be imported. These are important issues, but, for the moment, it is best to leave them to the consultation exercise that is now under way. I will ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members are kept fully informed of what is happening and of the events that are going to take place during the consultation.

Paddy Tipping: Replacement nuclear power will require considerable investment over a long period of time. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that investment will not be forthcoming if nuclear power is seen as a last resort? Should not we encourage investment by having a high carbon price that is sustainable through a new, revised and robust European emissions trading scheme?

John Hutton: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Carbon pricing is an important ingredient in the mix, and we must take it into account. I also agree that it is a mistakeand, dare I say it, an abnegation of responsibilityfor us to see nuclear power only as a last resort. That would be to pre-empt and pre-judge the issues and, in particular, would take no account of the important question of energy security that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has just referred to.

Alan Duncan: May I welcome the Secretary of State and his entire ministerial team to their new positions? I particular welcome the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) to his post. The departmental photo gallery will show him to be the seventh Energy Minister of this Government, and also the ninth. May I ask the Secretary of State how many qualified staff at the nuclear installations inspectorate are specifically employed to oversee the licensing of reactor designs?

John Hutton: I do not know the answer to that question, but I will find out.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because this is a crucial question. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that
	we have made the decision to continue with nuclear power.[ Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 955.]
	How can the Secretary of State justify that bold assertion when potential investors are dismayed that very few people in the NII are allocated to the licensing process? We can see now that there will be delays in building new power stations because, right from the start, there will be a licensing bottleneck. Is it not true that the Government have not yet given the NII permission to start recruiting the extra staff that it needs even now?

John Hutton: I will look into those matters. We are making sensible contingency plans, particularly in the area of pre-licensing that the hon. Gentleman has just referred to. It is necessary to keep those wheels turning while the consultation on nuclear power is under way, but in no way, shape or form should that be seen as pre-empting the outcome of the consultation document. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government and the NII are taking sensible steps forward. The NII is ultimately the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive and the Department for Work and Pensions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping in close contact with it.

Ashok Kumar: Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) said, has the Secretary of State seen the recent report published by the Royal Academy of Engineering, Educating Engineers for the 21st century: the Industry View? It reached one alarming conclusion:
	Over the next ten years the UK is facing an increasing shortage of high calibre engineering graduates entering industry.
	Given that we are heading towards nuclear power as the one option that we are going to follow, what measures is he taking to ensure that we have nuclear engineers for the future? They need to commission, build and run those power plants. What effort is he making to ensure that we have that sort of engineer in 10 years' time?

John Hutton: I welcome what my hon. Friend says and will repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. We have to address the skills base of the energy sector. That is primarily a responsibility for my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. I will work closely with him and his new Department in ensuring that Britain has the engineers and technical experts we need if we decide to go down the nuclear route. I want to make one other point clear; it is the Government's preliminary view that companies should have the opportunity to invest in new nuclear, but that will be alongside a range of diverse energy supplies, including renewables and gas.

Exports

Nigel Evans: What support has been allocated to increasing exports of British goods and services in 2007-08.

Gareth Thomas: Resources allocated to UK Trade and Investment this year totalled some 250 million, of which some 70 per cent. is devoted to overseas trade development. In addition, the devolved Administrations and the regional development agencies allocate resources to trade development too.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for that response. UK Trade and Investment does a very good job with the resources that it has available in a competitive global world. It employs 2,300 people, many of them in embassies, high commissions and consulates throughout the world. Is it not true, however, that some have been asked to extend their duties to cover global warming and the environment generally? That is an important subject and we need to keep its profile high in the rest of the world, but will the Minister review the responsibilities of our staff working abroad to ensure that they are properly focused on assisting British companies?

Gareth Thomas: We always keep under very close review what we are asking UKTI staff to do. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the recent review of the focal sectors on which it should concentrate. We want to ensure in particular that we help small and medium-sized enterprises to get innovative new products to the market. In addition, we also want to ensure that UKTI staff are doing all that they can to help British businesses sell products into new emerging markets, such as India, China, Brazil and so on.

Ken Purchase: Does my hon. Friend understand that although the important nuances to which he has referred will remain at the heart of the policy, it is simply a question of putting a darn sight more money into our exporting services? If he compares what we are doing with what the French and Germans are doing, to take just two international comparators, he will see that we are well down in investing in our exporters. I urge him to cherish our exporters in a nation that has to export in order to import those other goods and services that are so important to our well-being.

Gareth Thomas: I will always cherish the work of UKTI staff. They do an excellent job, as the recent record investment figures show. It is also why the Opposition's suggestions to abolish the regional development agencies are completely and utterly inappropriate. The RDAs' contribution, alongside the contribution of UKTI staff, is helping British business to sell into new markets. Obviously, there is more that we need to do, and we will keep that under close review.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the Minister to his new role. I am sure he would agree that Digby Jones has many admirable qualities to bring to export promotion policy, but he has said that he wants a more competitive corporation tax rate. He has also called trade unions irrelevant. Indeed, he has said that he will not join a political party. Is the Minister certain, therefore, that we are not going to end up with two trade policies: one announced by his more comradely colleague in the other place and the other announced by his more gentlemanly Ministers in this House?

Gareth Thomas: I think brother Digby has a huge contribution to make. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked him to join the Government. We recognise that he has played an important role as head of the CBI. As always, there has been a robust debate between the CBI, the Government and a range of business organisations as to how to move forward. We welcome his experience. I am sure that he will make an important contribution in his new role in the Department. Having seen some of the press reports since his appointment, he appears, if the rumours are true, to have already secured the premier invitation available to Ministers: to appear before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I feel a little envy towards him in that regard already.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend the Minister recognise that, as a country that exports more per head than the United States or Japan, we depend on exports, particularly to countries such as India, for our future prosperity? What will he do to involve resident communities whose origins are in India to help to push British exports? I am certain that their contribution is a significant reason why we are such a substantial exporter to India.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the contribution that people from the Indian diaspora are already making to improve trade relationships between our country and India. We continue to work on that through UKTI. As I indicated in answer to a previous question, we have shifted the focus of UKTI and asked it to do more to build trade relationships with countries such as India, China and Brazil. We will continue to work with diaspora communities in that regard, too.

WEEE Directive

Angela Watkinson: What estimate he has made of the number of in-store take-back facilities that will be created as a result of the waste electrical and electronic equipment regulations.

Richard Ottaway: What estimate he has made of the number of in-store take-back facilities that will be created as a result of the waste electrical and electronic equipment regulations.

Malcolm Wicks: The introduction of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive in the UK from 1 July is a positive step for the environment, given that Britain produces and disposes of some 2 million tonnes of such electrical waste every year. The new arrangements will reduce toxicity and the volume of waste going to landfill, as well as encouraging both resource productivity and sustainable development. All retailers of electrical and electronic equipment are obliged to offer in-store take-back, unless they are members of the distributor take-back scheme. So far, over 2,500 retailers have joined the scheme. That accounts for more than 75 per cent. of such sales.

Angela Watkinson: The local economy in Upminster depends heavily on the success of its many small businesses. I am concerned about the disproportionate effect of the regulations on small electronic producers and retailers. What assessment have the Government made of that impact and of the likely barrier to new entrants to the market?

Malcolm Wicks: We obviously have looked at the impact on small businesses. It is a producer responsibility, but I am encouraged that such a large number of distributorsover 2,500have already joined the take-back scheme. The costs are relatively small, but the environmental impact will be vast and in the right direction. I am encouraged by the fact that most small companies recognise the importance of that scheme. Their customers want to move away from the throwaway society. People who are recycling their newspapers, bottles and plastics want to recycle electrical goods. The directive puts that into place in Great Britain.

Richard Ottaway: As a fellow Croydon Member, may I welcome the Minister to his new brief? He has done well in the past and I am sure that he will do well in the future.
	I turn to the WEEE directive. Does he agree that it is essential that those regulations do not threaten our international competitiveness? To what extent has he done a comparison with the regulations in other European countries, and to what extent do our regulations differ from the European regulations?

Malcolm Wicks: We took a little while to introduce the scheme because we wanted to get it right. Offering producers and retailers who are producers the opportunity to join a take-back scheme, rather than their having to handle electrical waste in their own stores, is a move in the right direction. It is encouraging that new companies are springing up that see a commercial opportunity in recycling such waste, and that local authorities such as Croydon are turning what used to be known as the local dump into recycling centres, as evidenced by the excellent Purley Oaks recycling centre in my neighbourhood and the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Bill Olner: The regulations are welcome, but is the emphasis on recycling such products or on their being reused? If they can be reused, that is preferable to recycling them.

Malcolm Wicks: Voluntary organisations and local charities are making efforts in that regard. I have seen for myself in the great borough of Croydon how a voluntary organisation can perform minor repairs and maintenance on a washing machine that has been flung out and thereby make it ready for use by people who are being re-housed or low income families. There is also a substantial market in materials such as scrap metal. Environmentally and commercially, the measures are a major step in the right direction.

Lorely Burt: If your parliamentary kettle were to break down, Mr. Speaker, it might well be sent abroadto Poland, for exampleto be repaired. That is an unintended consequence of the WEEE regulations, as they impose a levy on damaged goods which makes them more expensive to repair in this country. Will the Minister consider modifying the regulations so that British companies can repair and resell such goods in this country?

Malcolm Wicks: We will, of course, keep that under close review. The measures have been in operation for only a few days, and I have no doubt that we will need to revisit certain aspects of them. Their overall direction is absolutely right, however. There is a statistic that is worth highlighting: each of us during our lifetime throws away 1 or perhaps 2 tonnes of goods such as kettles, toasters and white goods. We must stop that; we must move away from being a throwaway society to being an environmentally conscious society, and we are doing so.

Wind Farms

John Whittingdale: If he will review the noise limits for onshore wind farms.

Malcolm Wicks: We continue to support the approach set out in planning policy statementPPS22 on renewable energy, which is for local planning authorities to
	ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels,
	using the 1997 report by the energy technology support unit to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments. I do not consider that a review of that guidance is justified at present.

John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware of the growing evidence that people who live in close proximity to wind turbines suffer significant risks of adverse health effects? Will he give urgent consideration to increasing the minimum separation distance from large turbines to at least 2 km, and is he aware that this is another reason why my constituents in Bradwell and Tillingham are utterly opposed to the proposal to build 10 400 ft wind turbines within a mile of their homes?

Malcolm Wicks: No, I am not aware of such evidence, and I do not believe that it exists. A Government-commissioned Hayes McKenzie study published in 2006 concluded that there was no evidence of adverse health effects from wind turbines. We are aware that there are myths and concerns, and we have established a noise working group, which I have asked to meet quietly along the corridor.  [Interruption.] I cannot do Digby jokes, but I can do that one. Among the members of that group are the authors of the report to which I have referred and other acoustic experts. Its remit is to advise Government on the specific issue of aerodynamic modulation, not to review the existing guidance. It is up to local planning authorities to make their own judgments on smaller wind turbine developments.

Patrick Cormack: May I support my hon. Friend's general point and ask the Minister whether he will conduct an assessment of the environmental impact of these monstrous things and their effect on our tourism revenue?

Malcolm Wicks: Some people find them beautiful and others find them irksome. One study showed that 81 per cent. of the general public were in favour of wind power and that 62 per cent. would be happy to live within 3 miles of wind power development. Obviously, it is for local planning authorities to make their own judgments, but I am bound to say that it would be sad if we had a Parliament that says no to nuclear, no to gas storage and no to wind turbines. The people of Britain want the lights to turn on and their kettles to boil.

Sub-postmasters

Brian Binley: What plans he has to increase the contractual freedom afforded to sub-postmasters; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McFadden: Sub-postmasters are private business people who operate 97 per cent. of the 14,000 post offices in the network. They are free to develop their associated retail businesses and to pursue commercial arrangements with who ever they want, so long as the products provided are not in direct competition with the key Post Office products that provide income to support the network.

Brian Binley: May I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment? It is interesting to learn that brother Digby is now taking holy orders. I wonder whether he might take ministerial orders; it will be interesting to see. The Minister will know that sub-postmasters are concerned about the terms of their contract, which are vague. They are uncertain as to their freedoms in this respect and they have a real need for greater help and support to allow them to develop new areas of business. What plans does the Post Office have to answer those concerns?

Patrick McFadden: We are in dialogue with the Post Office about all that it can do to support sub-postmasters in their efforts to diversify and to grow and expand their businesses. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a competitive environment. A number of sub-post offices are under pressure, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said, but the Post Office will take this action with a mind to the products offered in sub-post offices that provide them with their own revenue.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked

Human Trafficking

Anthony Steen: What progress has been made by the interdepartmental ministerial group on human trafficking on implementing the action points from the action plan in relation to the protection of trafficked women.

Harriet Harman: Since the UK action plan on human trafficking was published in March, we have done further work with the countries of origin to protect against human trafficking, to support the victims of human trafficking in this country, and to prosecute and punish the perpetratorsthe human traffickers.

Anthony Steen: When she has the next ministerial interdepartmental meeting, will the right hon. and learned Lady raise the recent discovery that trafficked women are being forced to have contraceptive implants in their arms and legs without their consent? Will she also see that health workers and doctors are advised of this, so that the police can pursue the gangs that are doing it?

Harriet Harman: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been one of the foremost Members in this House in raising this important issue. I am not quite clear whether he is talking about the implanting of contraceptives that is taking place in this country.

Anthony Steen: Yes.

Harriet Harman: One important point about the interdepartmental ministerial group working on human trafficking is that it includes representation from the Department of Health. I will make sure that it discusses the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I shall perhaps report back to him in writing.

Margaret Moran: I most warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend and her colleagues to the Front Bench; it is a great pleasure to see her there. On my recent visit to Ukraine, where the trafficking of women is a serious problem, one concern that emerged was the lack of resources in this countryaside from the POPPY projectand the lack of rape crisis centres, which means that many women are being sent back to Ukraine, only to be re-victimised and to then end up back in this country. Will she look into that issue and ensure that there are proper resources, so that these women can be safeguarded when they arrivefinally and safelyin this country?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm welcome for me to my new post. I have regarded as very important the work that I have been able to do with her over the years as she has worked consistently on the issue of violence against women. She raises the important point of re-victimisation of women who go back to their own country but are then re-trafficked. That shows the importance of joining up the work of the voluntary sectorshe mentioned the POPPY projectthe immigration authorities, the police and the Foreign Office, which works in the countries of origin. It is a major problem of organised crime, involving hundreds of millions of pounds, and we need to work together on it.

Theresa May: I, too, welcome the right hon. and learned Lady to this, the fourth of her new jobs, albeit one that is usually shared with other roles. I join her in paying tribute to the work that has been done on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). We should all be concerned about the modern-day slavery that is human trafficking. It is a sickening and appalling trade in human beings. All hon. Members welcomed the Government's signing of the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, but they still have not ratified it. When do the Government intend to ratify it and will she update the House on what specific policy changes have been made as a result of signing the convention?

Harriet Harman: Signing the convention reflects the work that has been done with countries of origin to tackle the demand side of human trafficking in this country to protect victims and prosecute offenders. I was Solicitor-General for four years and I know that compared to many other European countries, this country has done a great deal to tackle the problem of human trafficking.
	I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position as shadow Minister for Women. Like me, she will combine the important work of that role with Leader of the House work.

Denis MacShane: How many prosecutions have there been of men who have paid for sex with trafficked women?

Harriet Harman: I cannot give my right hon. Friend the figures[Hon. Members: Thirty.] I am assisted by Opposition Members who say Thirty. My hon. Friend raises an important point. Sex without consent is illegal: it is the crime of rape. Too often, the practice has been that the victims are supported and the traffickers prosecutedrightly sobut the punters, the clients paying for sex with the women who have been abducted and brought to this country, are told to go on their way. We should recognise that if we tackle the demand side of this evil trade, we will go a long way. I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue, and we will keep a firm focus and work with the prosecutors on it.

HMRC

Philip Hollobone: What assessment she has made of the impact of plans to close Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs tax offices on women employees of those offices.

Barbara Follett: rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Barbara Follett: I thank the House for that welcome. Since its merger in 2005, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Service has been reviewing its extensive estate in the light of future business requirements. However, before a final decision is taken to close any office, including the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the impact on customers, staff and the wider community has to be assessed. That includes the examination of equality issues such as gender.

Philip Hollobone: I believe that the intended closure of the tax office in Kettering will be discriminatory against the largely female work force. Of 78 staff, 58 are women and 32 work part-time. They simply will not be able to relocate to the alternatives being put forward in Northampton or Leicester and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary liaised with her colleagues in the Treasury to stop that closure.

Barbara Follett: I shall be most happy to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I commend him on the work that he has done, in this House and outside, to represent his constituents. They must be very pleased, especially those in Cytringan house and Montagu court. HMRC is committed to ensuring that women and other groups do not suffer when tax offices are closed. I stress that no decision to close the Kettering office has yet been taken, and that consultations in the London area produced quite a large change in the closure programme. Therefore, he should persist.

Anne Snelgrove: May I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role, which is both well deserved and long overdue, especially given her commitment to equalities in this country and in South Africa? The possible closure of HMRC offices may affect my constituents as well. Will any change mean extra travel for the women involved, and will they be able to do the same sort of work in offices elsewhere?

Barbara Follett: One aspect of the impact assessment that is made is the effect on travel, which is quite considerable in the case of the Kettering office. All staff will have individual meetings with their managers to assess their travel requirements and to make sure that they do not affect their work-life balance. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments.

Gender Dysphoria

Chris McCafferty: How the Government are promoting equality for people with gender dysphoria; and if she will make a statement.

Barbara Follett: The Government are committed to promoting equality for people with gender dysphoria. Since April 2007, the duty on public authorities to eliminate sex discrimination has underpinned the specific legal protections for transsexual people in the workplace that we introduced in 1999. We are now consulting on ways to extend those protections.

Chris McCafferty: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on her promotion, and welcome her to the Dispatch Box? Is she aware of the huge disparity in the ability of transgender people in the UK to access treatment and surgery? In her new role, will she liaise with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure equality for all transgender people nationwide across the UK?

Barbara Follett: I am aware of the disparity to which my hon. Friend refers, and she will know all too well that responsibility for this matter rests currently with individual primary care trusts. However, I am already working across Government, and with the Department of Health in particular, to improve access to treatment and surgery for the trans community. The Department of Health has a programme of work that is aimed specifically at better meeting their needs.

Lorely Burt: This is the last time that I will be speaking to the House in the role of my party's spokesperson for women and equality. [Hon. Members: Shame!] May I add my congratulations to the Minister, and wish her very well in her new role? Also, I want to place on record my thanks to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. She worked in an extremely positive way with me and with Conservative spokespeople on these matters.
	I congratulate the Government on their proposals in respect of transsexuals. They are defined as people who have had, or seek, gender reassignment surgery, but that definition does not cover the vast majority of trans people, who do not want surgery. Why is no protection in place or planned to cover the majority of trans people who are not seeking surgery?

Barbara Follett: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words, and I commend her for the work that she has done in this House on women and equality issues. I shall also convey what she said to my predecessor.
	I agree that a great deal of work remains to be done in respect of the trans community. The Government and the Department of Health are trying to secure basic rights for the people in that community. After that, consultations will be held with them on the other issues that need to be addressed, one of which is the matter to which the hon. Lady referred.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: With permission, before I give the business of the House, may I say that, having been a Member of the House for 25 years, it is an enormous privilege to be its leadera member of the Government, of course, but leader of the whole House. I will always want to see, of course, that the Government are able to get through the laws that we have promised, but I and my ministerial team will do everything that we can to protect the rights of Back Benchers, to hold the Government to account, to ensure proper and timely scrutiny of legislation, and to enable the House to hold the most open, effective and best informed democratic debates in the world.
	The business for next week will be:
	Monday 9 JulyEstimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on scientific advice, risk and evidence-based policy making, followed by a debate on the Rural Payments Agency, the implementation of the single payment scheme and the UK Government's Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy.
	Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 10 JulyProceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisation) (Amendment) Order 2007, followed by Second Reading of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords].
	It is also expected that there will be a statement on children, schools and families.
	Wednesday 11 JulyOpposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled Stroke Services and a debate entitled Mending the Broken Society. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion, followed by if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 12 JulyIf necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Further Education and Training Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 13 JulyThe House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 16 JulyOpposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a Liberal Democrat motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 17 JulyIf necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 18 JulyConsideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 19 JulyIf necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on Zimbabwe on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 20 JulyThe House will not be sitting.
	It is the Government's intention to make an oral statement on the content of the draft legislative programme to the House before it rises.
	 Following are the relevant documents:
	 The Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 900, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence-Based Policy Making, and the Government Response thereto, First Special Report, Session 2005-06, HC 307.
	 Third Report, from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 107, on the Rural Payments Agency and the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme; and
	 Fourth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 546, on the UK Government's Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the business. I was able to welcome her to her new role on Monday in questions to the Leader of the House, but I take this opportunity of welcoming the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), to her new role.
	I thank the Leader of the House for the commitment that she has given for the Government to make an oral statement on the draft legislative programme before the House rises for the recess. Will she also give a commitment that the House will have an opportunity for a full debate on that programme before we rise?
	Last week, just four weeks before the summer recess, the Ministry of Justice published the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The right hon. and learned Lady's predecessor said last week:
	It is also a carry-over Bill.[ Official Report, 28 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 479.]
	I believe that at no point did the Government consult the Opposition parties about whether the Bill should be carried over. So will the part-time Leader of the House make a statement on that issue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say that there are courtesies that we are entitled to in the House. The right hon. and learned Lady is the Leader of the House, and if the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) uses the term part-time Leader of the House during the business question, I will stop her.

Theresa May: On 25 September

Hon. Members: Apologise!

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to apologiseI have made the point. Let us go on.

Theresa May: On 25 September the right hon. and learned Lady said that we need to
	Stop these excessive, ridiculous city bonuses
	but the Treasury, then run by the current Prime Minister, replied:
	If the City is doing well, the country is doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper.
	May we have a statement from the right hon. and learned Lady on city bonuses?
	In May, the right hon. and learned Lady, who is now also chairman of the Labour party, said that the Government
	should do more to fund the development of trade unions,
	but the Prime Minister claims that he wants to curb the power of the trade unions within the Labour party. May we have a debate on party funding?
	On 24 May, the right hon. and learned Lady said that we would have to keep Trident under review; but the Government's policy, rightly, is that we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. The new Prime Minister says that we must remain
	strong in defence...retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.
	May we have a debate on Britain's independent nuclear deterrent?
	May we also have a debate on social responsibility? On 28 May, the right hon. and learned Lady said that Labour should learn from previous campaigns when it told people, You don't need that money, we've got much better ideas about what to do with that money, so may we have a debate on who knows bestthe people themselves or the woman in Whitehall?
	May we have a debate on honesty in government? On 29 May, on Newsnight, the right hon. and learned Lady agreed that the Government should apologise for the Iraq war. Subsequently, she said:
	I've never said the Government should apologise
	over the Iraq war. When I raised that point in the House on Monday, she was careful not to repeat her denial on the Floor of the House, so will she now make a statement clarifying her position? Does she stand by what she originally said, or does she rebut it?
	Finally, the Prime Minister pleaded yesterday that he had been in the job only for five days. Given that the last Prime Minister resigned seven days previously, may we have a statement on who was Prime Minister for the other two days?

Harriet Harman: I join the right hon. Lady in her welcome to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
	The right hon. Lady asked about an opportunity for the House to debate our draft legislative programme, which is part of the changes announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. Not only will there be a statement to the House setting out the draft content of the legislative programme, but there will be an opportunity to debate it. When I open the summer recess Adjournment debate there will be an opportunity for Back Benchers to discuss the contents of the draft legislative programme as well as raising important constituency matters. There will be a statement and then the summer recess debate.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether there was consultation about the carry-over of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I am afraid I cannot answer her question, but I will discuss it with my colleague the Chief Whip and Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and get back to her in writing.
	I thank the right hon. Lady for welcoming me to my new position. After 25 years in the House, I know that if she wants a debate on City bonuses, an additional debate on Trident, a debate about trade unions or a debate about honesty in government, she can use Opposition days to bring those issues to the House.
	On party funding, we await further outcomes from the cross-party work of Sir Hayden Phillips, but perhaps I could offer the right hon. Lady a non-aggression pact. It is not in the interests of the House for her to try to give me a hand-bagging every Thursday, so I hope we can get over this and actually hear from Back Benchers on both sides of the House about the important issues they want to raise.

Karen Buck: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her role; I look forward to the coming months under her leadership of the House.
	Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on youth crime? As she is aware, in the last few months alone, two teenagers in my constituency have died of stab wounds, so it is absolutely essential that in addition to debating deterrent sentencing and effective policing we discuss how we can prevent the crisis that is gripping some of our young people, particularly in London and our cities, so that we can build on the success of Sure Start. Will she find time for us to discuss how we can provide effective support services for teenagers and young people, and may we have that debate in time for the comprehensive spending review?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is one of the foremost Members of the House in putting forward the questions of how we tackle and prevent youth crime. I know that she has raised the issue, and it is a matter of concern with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and in education. We need a cross-government approach, and there are Home Office questions on Monday. I am sure that the issue will be raised again then.

Simon Hughes: I very much welcome the right hon. and learned Lady to her new responsibilitiesand her friend with her.
	I welcome the announcements that the right hon. and learned Lady has made about the Government's intention to follow up on what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday in taking forward constitutional reform as it affects this place. She will understand that it is important that not only MPs but the public have a participatory role in what the legislation should be. So could she tell us whether there will be a role for the public to have a say, as well as politicians? Is she willing to accept, and to put on the record her view, that much more power should be transferred to the House? In particular, is she willing now to say that responsibility for the business of this place should be driven by this place in co-operation with the Government, not by the Government alone, and that it should be this place that chooses the Select Committee Chairs to scrutinise the Executive? It would be very helpful if she could indicate that that is in her plan too.
	On national matters of importance, will she make sure before we break for the summer recess that there is an opportunity for a full debate on the implications of the flooding in the north, the midlands and other parts of the country? Many placesHull, Sheffield and Worcestershirehave been severely affected, and I am sure that colleagues and those whom they represent would hugely appreciate the chance to learn that they have not been forgotten and that they will be much more supported in the days and weeks ahead than they have felt on some days in recent weeks.
	If possible, will the right hon. and learned Lady make sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House? Whatever happens to interest rates in the next few minutes, they have gone up four times in the last year. Debt is 1.3 trillion, mortgages are sky high and house prices are sky high. To continue the analogy from last week, many people still feel that they are in very hard times, and in places such as her constituency and mine, many people sense that it is a tale of two cities.
	Last week, the Corruption Bill was objected by those on the Treasury Bench. When are we going to have either permission for an Opposition Member to introduce a corruption Bill, supported by the Government, or a corruption Bill introduced by the Government to deal with the fact that we still have a very lax regime in this country?

Harriet Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post as shadow Leader of the House. We are well used to working together as he is my next-door neighbour in the London borough of Southwark. He too has been in the House for something like 25 years.
	Yes, I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about whether the public will be able to engage with the question of what the Government's legislative priorities should be. As well as having a statement to the House and a debate in the House, we intend to issue a document to the public that sets out what the Government's priorities are for new laws, so that the public can see it. All these things previously would have happened behind closed doors and engaged the machinery of government, but would have been hidden to the outside world.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's point on decisions about business, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he sees having a strong Parliament as part of strengthening government. The Government do better when they have a strong Parliament holding them to account. However, I am not able to make any announcement about making changes as to how we do business at this point.
	On the hon. Gentleman's points about interest rates, the new Chancellor will be answering Treasury questions next Thursday. I have no doubt that he will want to continue the work of the previous Chancellor, in having a strong and stable economy, low inflation and high employment. For all the problems that remain in our two constituencies in inner city London, the hon. Gentleman will know that people are much better off than they were under the Tories because of the economic management of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor.
	On the question of flooding, I too would like to add my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives and my sympathy to those who still have problems, particularly those in Hull. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend for Wentworth (John Healey), is in Hull today and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be there tomorrow. The work on the floods must go onboth preventing them and supporting those who have already been affected by them.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend, and all hon. Members, will be aware of the need to improve services for people with mental health needs and their families, who are often their carers. An ongoing review in the Goole part of my constituency is trying to achieve that, but it would be boosted enormously if the local primary care trust provided funding at the level that the Department of Health says that it should. Will she find time for a debate on mental health services so that all hon. Members can make a contribution to stopping those services being the Cinderella of the NHS?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend represents a concern that is felt across the House. He will know that although there has been a great increase in spending on mental health, and increases in the number of consultants and the number of hours that people from local authorities work with people with dementia and mental health problems, there is still a great deal of unmet need. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the points that my hon. Friend has made, and of course there will be Health questions on 24 July.

Patrick Cormack: In congratulating the right hon. and learned Lady, wishing her well in her post and welcoming her opening words, may I ask her to consider that the change that she has proposed to the summer Adjournment debate could totally alter its character? Members on both sides of the HouseI speak as one who has replied to many of these debateswelcome the opportunity to bring up individual and constituency matters. If the debate is subsumed in a debate on the Government's proposed legislative programme, its present form will be distorted and destroyed. Will she please reconsider that particular point in her statement?

Harriet Harman: I will take any issue that the hon. Gentleman raises with me very seriously. He is one of the most experienced Members of the House. I say to him, and to all Members, that my office is just down the corridor and the door is open. If hon. Members want to raise issues, they do not have to wait for business questions, they can just come in and see me. It is not my intention to interfere with what is an important opportunity for debate before the House rises in the summer. It is a time when Members of Parliament can raise wide-ranging issues of particular concern to their constituencies. I hoped that we might be able to offer Members an opportunity to raise not only their constituents' concerns, but if they want to, the question of the draft contents of the Queen's Speech. The debate could be divided into two slots of three hours, or we could weave both themes through the six hours. Perhaps I will talk to the hon. Gentleman afterwards and take soundings on the best way of dealing with the matter.

Betty Williams: May I also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her new post and wish her well? Will she hold urgent talks with the House authorities on smoking in the Palace of Westminster, and in particular, on the way in which the system is already being abused? I would be happy to show her the locations.

Harriet Harman: The smoking ban in public places is important for public health and we all want to play our part in ensuring that the ban is effective. On my way here this morning, I saw somebody wearing a smoking ban enforcement high visibility jacket. So those people are out on the streets. The point that my hon. Friend raises should probably be raised with the Serjeant at Arms. I would suggest that she do that.

Michael Spicer: When do the Government expect to receive the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body on Members' pay and allowances?

Harriet Harman: I think that in the normal course of events it is received in July, but I cannot give any assurances as to when it will be received or published. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I can tell him anything further, and I will place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library.

Lynda Waltho: I add my congratulations to those of my colleagues and also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who was a particularly inspired appointment. I was encouraged and stimulated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday, and particularly by what he said about devolving more powers back to Parliament. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House expand on the issue of the Queen's Speech, which I found quite interesting, and the possibility of involving Select Committees and individual Members in that debate?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome. I have suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, that the consultation with Members and the scrutiny of the draft legislative programmethe programme will be announced by way of a statement of the Houseshould be undertaken by the Liaison Committee, and he has been good enough to agree that that is what he will do.

Paul Goodman: Since the terrible events of 7/7, I think that there has been only one debate in the House on integration and cohesion. Given recent events in Glasgow and London, will the Government find time, in their own time, for a substantial debate on integration and cohesion in Britain?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and perhaps he will allow me to reflect on it. We have had running-through debates on Bills, statements and oral questions. The issue of community cohesion has been a big preoccupationrightly sofor the House. It was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement on the constitution and the question of Britishness. However, I will reflect on whether we should seek time for a whole debate focused on the question of how different Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations are contributing to the question of cohesion. It is Communities and Local Government questions next Tuesday, so perhaps he could prompt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the matter then.

Patrick Hall: I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on her new role and commend her on the adult and measured way in which she responded to the traditional yah-boo politics offered by the Conservative shadow Leader of the House. With regard to the bids for unitary status that are being assessed by the Government, she will know that the Government intend to make a decision later this month, hopefully in the House. Does she believe that due weight will be given to the fact that, in Bedfordshire, more than 200 local employers are backing Bedford borough's bid and that 20,000 people have supported petitions on the Bedford borough and central Bedfordshire bids?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. As he has acknowledged, the question of unitary status will be the subject of a Government decision and announcement in due course. I know that it is an area of great concern, not just in Bedfordshire, but throughout the country. I will draw his comments about his constituency to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Sammy Wilson: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment. There is grave concern in Northern Ireland over the role of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and especially over how the office has dealt with inquiries into former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Pending arrests have been published to the media and have taken place in a blaze of publicity. Officers who have been detained have sometimes been denied drugs and medication while in custody. In the past, the office tried to bury a report that showed that 50 per cent. of police officers have no confidence in it. Will she allow a debate on the Floor of the House to discuss the concerns about the Office of the Police Ombudsman and to consider how some degree of accountability might be built into the office to ensure that those with grievances have some way of airing them?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity during Northern Ireland questions on 25 July for the hon. Gentleman to raise those points. I am sure that the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland will note his points and, especially, his concern that there should be greater confidence in the important work that it does. Let me take this opportunity to express my support for the very difficult work that is still ongoing to build confidence on all sides in Northern Ireland following the important strides that have been made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could seek a meeting with the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, if he has not already done so.

Anne Moffat: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend? I am sure that she will have some sympathy with my request for a debate on the women's land army, given her role as Minister for Women. Its members are the forgotten veterans of the first and second world wars. While we welcomed what happened with the Bevin boys last week, we should also honour those women, who worked very hard.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She was a long-standing champion of women at work in the trade union movement, and she is thinking about the important contribution that women made to this country in times gone by. I will take up her point and get back to her. As Minister for Women, I will liaise with my ministerial colleague. We should take a bit of action.

Andrew Tyrie: During the deputy leadership campaign, the Leader of the House called on her Government to renegotiate the Chicago convention, which has a loophole that permits extraordinary rendition: the process through which many people have been kidnapped from around the world and, in some cases, taken to places where they might be tortured. She said that we need to be
	absolutely certain we don't have a situation where we are complicit in torture because our airspace is being used or planes are landing in our country and then taking off again.
	Will she secure a debate to clarify whether the Government will indeed act on her recommendation that we should reform the Chicago convention to bring extraordinary rendition to an end?

Harriet Harman: May I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's record on raising such important issues? I remind him that when I was in the Department for Constitutional Affairsnow the Ministry of JusticeI gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and dealt with the question of how we can find out what is travelling through our airspace. Many people think that it is anomalous that while one must declare whether an aircraft is carrying a VIP or a dangerous substance, there is no requirement under the Chicago convention to declare whether prisoners are being carried. No doubt my ministerial colleagues will note the hon. Gentleman's point. They are already concerned about the matter and will be looking further at the possibilities.

Stephen Ladyman: May I also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her job? As someone who has rekindled his interest in Back-Bench rights in recent days, I am delighted that she will be protecting them for us. When will we debate the Prime Minister's ideas on constitutional reform? My constituents are not interested in anything that would damage the Union and they are certainly not interested in creating two-tier MPs, but they are interested in our developing a structure that will allow the challenges that we face in England to be thoroughly debated in this place.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. Many of us felt that he did very good work as a Transport Minister, and I always thought of him as our version of Jeremy Clarkson, albeit more progressive and green. I say to all who are rekindling their interest in being on the Back Benches that Back Benchers can quite often do a great deal, while sometimes not all Ministers can do as much as they want. I will strongly support the work that my hon. Friend will no doubt do as a Back Bencher.
	The House will have heard the Prime Minister talking about regional Ministers. We will have to discuss how we make them appropriately accountable to the House so that their work can be scrutinised. He has also raised the question of regional Select Committees, on which the whole House will need to work together to ensure that we have an appropriate structure that works well.

Bob Spink: Given that UK laws and traditions specifically forbid Parliament from binding its successors, may we have a debate on the retained clause in the proposed new EU constitution that effectively gives the EU the permanent right to seize more powers from this country without any further agreement? We must address the EU democratic deficit.

Harriet Harman: There is strong concern that the House should carry out proper scrutiny of EU issues, and I will shortly meet the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. There is no question of a referendum because there is no new constitution or constitutional treaty. Any amendments to an existing treaty will be subject to the proper scrutiny of the House, which is what we would all want.

Peter Soulsby: May I join the chorus of welcomes to the new Leader of the House? Is she aware of the recent collapse of First Solution Money Transfer Ltd? The company specialised in taking remittances from Bangladeshis to Bangladesh, but its collapse means that some 20,000 people have lost money that might amount to millions of pounds. I suggest that the matter is too important to be left to an Adjournment debate, so I hope that the Leader of the House will speak to her ministerial colleagues to ensure that we have a statement or, preferably, a debate in the House, about how it was possible for the company to collapse leaving such debts, the role of the regulators, and what the Government are doing to ensure that our constituents get their money back.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue. The situation involving First Solution Money Transfer is heartbreaking for not only the people who put money in, but those who were expecting the vital remittances that form an important, albeit largely unseen, part of the international development effort. People who come to this country to work hardsometimes they have two or three jobsand send money back to their country of origin are the hidden heroes of international development. My hon. Friend's point is important for my ministerial colleagues in not only the Department for International Development, but the Treasury. I will consult them on how we can ensure that we take up the issue and report back to the House.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on her appointment. I hope that she will indeed prove to be the House's representative in the Government at least as much asof course she isthe Government's representative in the House.
	As a matter of urgency, may we please have on the Floor of the House in Government time a debate on the Modernisation Committee report on the role of the Back Bencher and the use of non-legislative time? Given that the issue was sufficiently salient to merit a reference by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on Tuesday and that, when I asked this question of the right hon. and learned Lady's predecessor three weeks ago, he gave me a reply that was encouraging but unspecific, may I appeal to the Leader of the House to give me a reply that is at least as encouraging and rather more specific, perhaps by guaranteeing that the debate will take place on the Floor of the House before the summer recess?

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. He is assiduous in pursuing the question of the role of Back Benchers in the House. I suspect that he has not only welcomed me to my position, but set me my first test. I thank him for drawing the matter to my attention and I will get on it.

Emily Thornberry: May I add my voice to the welcome that we want to give to my right hon. and learned Friend in her new postit is great to see her there? May we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the important subject of the plight of leaseholders with social landlords when major works are initiated? The Government's policy of ensuring that the decent homes standard is met in all our affordable housing is fully supported, given its importance, but it means that those who have bought their council flats are facing huge bills.

Harriet Harman: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's constituency work on the plight of leaseholders, who, as such, rather than as tenants, did not realise that when their flats were improvedas a result of the investment made by this Labour Governmentthey would have to pay capital charges; many of them were wholly unprepared for that. She has worked with me in my capacity as a constituency MP to try to ensure that the Government do all they can to ensure fairness for leaseholders, and she will know that under the new Prime Minister, the Government are focusing increasingly on the issues facing those in affordable housing, including the lack of it.

George Young: May I set the right hon. and learned Lady another test? On Tuesday, the Prime Minister launched The Governance of Britain, a document proposing an ambitious programme of constitutional reform that has enormous implications for the House of Commons. Should not the Government be interested in the response of the House to that document, and should we not have a two-day debate, in Government time, so that the Executive can reflect on the views of the House?

Harriet Harman: The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers sets out work for a number of Departmentson local government, on the relationship with the judiciary and on House issues. I suggest we ensure that each responsible Department, and I as Leader of the House, take forward the proposals outlined in the document, ensuring as much consultation as possible, and, on the journey on which the Prime Minister has set us, keeping in mind the overall picture. My right hon. Friend has said that we need not only to take individual measures forward, but to take an overview. We will have to consider how we do that without losing sight of the overall programme.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: May I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and her wonderful deputy on being appointed to their new roles? They are modernisers and great feminists, which is a great treat for us.
	Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making time available on the Floor of the House to discuss Darfur and the recent UN resolutions? There have been many resolutions on Darfur, and it has now been acknowledged that there should be a peacekeeping force. The matter is of huge interest to Mr. David Moorhead, head of religious education in one of my local schools, Sacred Heart, and to hundreds of his pupils and of my constituents. We would like something to be done, and we want to send a clear signal from the House that we take the matter very seriously and want the action that has been promised.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm words of welcome to me and to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. She raises an issue of concern not only to her, but, as she rightly says, across the House, and among the public. We debated in the House the progress that needs to be made in Darfur through the United Nations, supporting the African Union and the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I think that her point is that we need to hear more from the Government, so perhaps she could make the issue the subject of an Adjournment debate.

Peter Bone: Yesterday in the House I highlighted the case of a constituent who was going blind, but who had to have private treatment because it was not available on the NHS. Yesterday evening, another constituent rang me to say that exactly the same thing had happened to her: she could not get NHS treatment and the only way to save her sight was to go private. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or statement on access to NHS treatment in north Northamptonshire for blindness?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is raising the issue of age-related macular degeneration

Peter Bone: In the first case, not the second.

Harriet Harman: I will consider the points that he makes and will raise them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that we tackle as early as possible illnesses and diseases that can lead to blindness, so that people can continue to lead a full life.

Madeleine Moon: May I join in the praise recognising the popularity of both appointments to the Office of the Leader of the House? Seeing women promoted to such positions is a joy to all of us. The Parliamentary Information and Communication Technology team recently sold HTC mobile communication devices to a number of hon. Members, but the phones have proved faulty, unreliable and extremely expensive. PICT will not take them back or replace them with things that operate correctly. Given that many Members were forced into buying them because of the faulty equipment available to Members who have distant offices in the Palace system, and who cannot use the Library computers because they are not working, may we have a debate in the Chamber on the quality of services available to Members, so that we can actually communicate with our constituents and the support teams in offices at some distance from the Chamber?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm welcomes, and I hope that we will live up to the House's aspirations, and ours.
	Electronic communication is very important if Members of Parliament are to do their work properly and keep closely in touch with their constituents, so it is not a technical point that she raises but a point of real substance on how we fulfil our responsibilities as constituency MPs. I raised the issue with the Clerk of the House yesterday after my hon. Friend mentioned it to mein the Lady Members Room, actuallyand the Clerk told me that Kevin Tebbit is undertaking work on the provision of services to Members, so that there is a clear line of accountability and a management structure. When things go wrong, Members thereby know who to hold accountable and where to take their concerns, and something is done about them.

Mark Hunter: May I join those who have congratulated the new Leader of the House on her appointment, and wish her well in her new job? Will she find time for an urgent debate on the proper and appropriate use of the facilities of the House, and the activities of right hon. and hon. Members in relation to the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members? I raise the matter having discovered that an event for the Cheadle Business and Professional Group was held

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the general point that he wanted to make, to which I think it is reasonable for the Leader of the House to respond. If he wishes to take the matter further, there are channels through which he can do so.

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman follow the proper channels, as advised by Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that we make sure that we do not cross the line in using publicly funded House of Commons facilities for anything that might be party political.

Jim Devine: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend? That is how she told me to address her when I first came to the House. May we have a debate on the benefits of the national health service, as reflected in early-day motion 1842?
	 [ That this House pays tribute to Nye Bevan and the radical, reforming Labour governments of 1945 to 1951, for establishing the National Health Service (NHS) on 5th July 1948, thereby removing the fear of ill health from hardworking families; and pays tribute to NHS staff throughout the United Kingdom, who provide health care free at the time of need, 24 hours each day, 365 days of each year. ]
	On this day in 1948, a radical, reforming Labour Government established the national health service. For the first time ever, the fear of ill-health was taken away from hard-working families. Will she join me in congratulating NHS staff on providing health care free at the point of need? Is she as surprised as I was to learn that there is no hospital in the United Kingdom named after Nye Bevan, the man who created it?

Harriet Harman: I join in my hon. Friend's congratulations to NHS staff. He is a great champion of the national health service and he makes an important suggestion, which I will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.

Nigel Evans: Like everyone else, I have rarely been more joyous than on seeing the new leadership team in the Chamber, defending the rights of Back Benchers like myself and our newest addition, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I add my support to him during his no doubt short respite on the Back Benches to call for a full debate in Government time on the proposed constitutional changes. I do not believe that the regional representatives or spokesmen on behalf of the Government are the answer to the West Lothian question. My constituents are concerned that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being Scottish Members, can vote on health and education in my constituency, but I cannot do the same with respect to theirs. If English votes for English MPs is not the answer to the West Lothian question, let us have a debate on what is.

Harriet Harman: I should have thought that as a fellow English Member of Parliament the hon. Gentleman would welcome the notion of regional Ministers appropriately accountable to the House, and the possibility of regional Select Committees to give a greater focus on the English regions. I know that he is a supporter, as I am, of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those of us who support the Union do not see how it could work sensibly for Members elected from constituencies throughout the Union to come into the House, but for some not to be able to vote on some legislation. Having been elected from the various parts of the Union to the House, all Members must be entitled to vote on all legislation, whether they are from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or London.

Gisela Stuart: It is good to see three good women on the Front Bench [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the risk of sounding churlish, I think the Leader of the House may not mind too much if we do not have any more congratulations today. Every Member is offering congratulations, which is taking a considerable amount of time out of the time available.

Gisela Stuart: At this week's Hampton Court Palace flower show, the growing schools garden, which was sponsored by what is now the Department for Children, Schools and Families, won the gold medal. After the flower show the garden will be moved to the Birmingham botanical gardens in my constituency, where it will be accessible to all the schools in Birmingham and the area. May we have a debate in the House on the way in which our schools use outdoor facilities and available allotments, particularly in our big cities, for educational purposes so that such gardens, like outdoor classrooms [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has sufficient material to reply.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the work of all those involved in the outdoor classroom in my hon. Friend's constituency, and acknowledge the wider point that she makes about outdoor work between schools and on the land held by schools. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to stop Members congratulating me? It might be the last time they ever do so.

Pete Wishart: May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, and take the opportunity to remind her gently that there are more than three parties in the House when she comes to represent its views. May I ask for a debate on airport security and use the opportunity to pay tribute to John Smeaton, the one-man scourge of international terrorism at Glasgow airport, the hero of Abbotsinch airport. I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that he and other members of the public showed immense courage and bravery in tackling the terrorists at Glasgow airport. Will she use her new office to convince the Prime Minister that honours should be winging their way to Glasgow?

Harriet Harman: The whole House joins in the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, which were also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) during Prime Minister's questions. I send my best wishes to the responsible official whose work the hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House, but whose name I did not catch.

Julie Morgan: I congratulate the Government on the document The Governance of Britain, which is an exciting and ambitious programme. When may we have a debate on the section entitled Making Parliament more representative? It is a huge achievement that we now have a woman deputy leader of the Labour party, but we still need more women on these Benches.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of all-women shortlists, which was the vehicle by which we have managed to get more Labour women Members of Parliament into the House. When I was first elected to the House 25 years ago, I was one of only 10 Labour women MPs. We now have 97 Labour women MPs. Then, the House of Commons was 97 per cent. men and only 3 per cent. women. We have changed that, but we still have a long way to go. I know that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is both shadow Leader of the House and shadow Minister for Women, will want to increase the number of Conservative women MPs from only 17 at present.

Julian Lewis: Yesterday I had the unforgettably sad privilege of attending the military funeral at Dover castle of Corporal John Rigby, who was killed defending his men just outside Basra palace. Having met his parents, Doug and Liz Rigby, and his twin brother Will, I can understand from where he derived his character, his courage and his reputation as one of the finest soldiers in the British Army. Today, on the Today programme, I heard a spokesman from Hizb ut-Tahrir saying that it was acceptable for British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, like Corporal Rigby, to be killed. I do not know if that spokesman is a British citizen or not. If he is a British citizen, may we have a statement from a Home Office Minister explaining why he should not be put on trial for treason? If he is not a British citizen, may we have a statement from a Home Office Minister explaining why he is allowed to reside in this country?

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing two very important issues to the Floor of the House. I know that he is extremely assiduous as a Back Bencher in the House and a strong protagonist of the rights of Back Benchers, and I look forward to working with him. May I express my sincere condolence and sympathy to the family and friends of Corporal John Rigby. It was a tragic death and we all express our sympathy. I, too, heard the comments of Hizb ut-Tahrir this morning on the Today programme. I know that my colleagues in Government are extremely concerned to enforce rigorously the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in respect of those who promote terrorism. They will have heard what was said. The matter is under continuous review. I had the bizarre experience of Hizb ut-Tahrir coming to see me, as a woman parliamentarian, in my constituency surgery and arguing to me that they would prefer to see a caliphate rather than a parliamentary democracy. They do not believe in women doing anything outside the home. We must be very concerned to make sure that subversion and support for terrorism are not fomented in this country, and my colleagues in Government are very much concerned with that.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I refer to a matter of business that the Leader of the House has announcedI know that that is an unusual practice during these questionswhich is the debate on forced marriages, which is to occur on 10 July? I congratulate the Government on taking over the private Member's Bill and look forward to legislation to tackle forced marriages. However, because it started as a private Member's Bill, there has not been the kind of preliminary discussion and debate that we usually try to have about new legislation, and that, following the very welcome statement by the Prime Minister, will clearly happen more in future. Can the Leader of the House use the summer to try to initiate a widespread debate about what is in the legislation and what should be added to it, so that by the time it comes back to the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading we can ensure that all the communities have been properly engaged in a debate on this very important subject?

Harriet Harman: What my hon. Friend says is important for two reasons. Obviously, the House needs to be sure that we get the legislation right and that there is proper scrutiny. Also, what she proposes is important because it will be part of reinforcing the message that we want to go out to all communities in this countrythat forced marriage is not acceptable. Women and men must be able to choose their own partners in marriage and not be forced. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Lester, who introduced the private Member's Bill in the House of Lords, and my colleague Baroness Cathy Ashton, who took it through. As my hon. Friend said, the legislation has been introduced in a rather unusual way. I will consider how we deal with that, but the Bill, and its principle, is very important.

Douglas Hogg: May I echo the views expressed on both sides of the House that we should have an early debate on the constitution? Bearing in mind that we have Scottish-only votes for Scottish business, Northern Irish-only votes for Irish business, and Welsh-only votes for Welsh business, is it not a constitutional and democratic scandal that Members representing Scottish constituencies, and Ministers too, vote on matters and drive them through when they have no democratic authority and are in no sense accountable?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, like me, a supporter of the Union. It is curious, is it not, that when parliamentary colleagues complain about this they always mention Scotland and Wales but never mention London? If he is concerned about the asymmetry of our devolution arrangements, perhaps he can think about London and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland and Wales, and then he will come back to my answer, and my view, which is that I am a strong supporter of devolution and a strong supporter of the Union and this House.

Higher Education (Student Support)

John Denham: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on reforms to support for students in higher education.
	I am delighted to make my first statement as the first Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. In establishing my Department, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister charged my colleagues and I with the twin aims of providing a strong, integrated permanent voice across Government for effective investment in research, science and skills at all levels and ensuring that research, higher education and further education serve their wider purposessupporting social mobility and inclusion for the disadvantaged, and cultural growth. Success in higher education will be one key measure of my Department's work. The skills and talents of our people are our greatest natural asset, and our universities and colleges must offer world-class standards of teaching and research.
	Since 1997, the number of home and overseas students has increased by over 400,000, and the funding of higher education institutions has risen by over 20 per cent. in real terms. Before 1997, funding per student had declined by 36 per cent. in less than a decade. In today's global economy, we cannot afford to stand still. The growth in the number of graduates being produced in India and China is dramatic. Around the world, countries are increasingly investing in the high-level skills and the cutting edge research that universities provide. To compete and prosper in this worldto respond to the needs of leading global and national businesseswe must enable many thousands more people to study and graduate each year. To become a world leader in skills, as Lord Leitch recommended, we must aim for at least 40 per cent. of adults to have higher level qualifications by 2020.
	Everyone who has the potential and qualifications to succeed in higher education, whatever their family background, should have the opportunity to participate. No one should be held back from realising their potential. That is fair, and it is right for our economy. We cannot be satisfied when only 28 per cent. of students come from low-income backgrounds. We are wasting the talents of too many young people for whom university study should be a realistic ambition, not out of reach. We recognise, too, that hard-working families on modest incomes have concerns about the affordability of university study. They have high aspirationsrightly soand we should help them to fulfil those aspirations. To meet the challenges of achieving world-class skills, and to make the most of the talent and ability of every individual, we need to be willing to change.
	That is why I propose four major changes to our system of student support. First, we will increase substantially the number of students entitled to maintenance grants. These changes will take effect for students from England entering higher education in 2008. More students will receive full grants worth 2,835. From September next year, full grants will be available to new students from families with incomes of up to 25,000, compared with 18,360. We estimate that 50,000 more students each year will receive full grants once the system is fully up and running. With the addition of 310 bursaries from higher education institutions, these students will be guaranteed 3,145 a year.
	Moreover, eligibility for maintenance grants will be extended to many more students from families on modest and middle incomeshard-working families who are doing the right thing by encouraging their children to go to university. Students whose families have household incomes of up to 60,000 a year will in future benefit from eligibility to a grant. More than 100,000 extra students at any one time will be entitled to a partial grant once these proposals are fully implemented. More than 250,000 students will gain from our proposals once fully implemented. Of those, 35,000 will gain by more than 1,000 a year and a further 125,000 by more than 500. For a student from a household on 25,000 a year earnings, that will mean an extra 1,100 a year in maintenance grant. For a family on 50,000 a year with two children at university, it will mean that each student receives a grant of 560 a year. Today, just over half of students who entered higher education in 2006 received a maintenance grant. From 2008, two thirds will do so. A third of students will get a full grant, compared with 29 per cent. now, and a further third will get a partial grant, compared with 22 per cent. now. To fund this improvement and the other measures that I am announcing today, we will be investing over 400 million a year when the system is fully in place. That is a major increase in support to students.
	Secondly, able young people from low income homes should aim for university, confident of the financial support they will receive. From the 2008-09 academic year, a 16-year-old who qualifies for an educational maintenance allowance will be guaranteed a minimum level of maintenance support at university. This 16-year-old will be guaranteed at least five years of maintenance support for their studiesthrough school, college and university. The guarantee will support aspirations for higher education. It will provide certainty about the financial support to fulfil their potential. Young people starting their studies at sixth-form or college will see a clear route into higher education. More than 250,000 16-year-olds a year will get the guarantee. Of course, in developing that package, I will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that support goes to those students who are qualified and demonstrate their rigorous compliance with the system.
	Thirdly, for students whose parents have not attended university, the support of others can be crucial in deciding to go to university. We want to give new emphasis to students acting as role models and mentors for young people who might not otherwise go on to higher education. I propose to double the number of such mentors on our popular and successful student associate scheme from 7,500 to 15,000. That means one generation of students supporting the next generation of children towards college or university.
	Finally, we also want to offer graduates more choice about the repayment of their loans. Students starting in 2008 will have that option once they complete their degree. When graduates face significant new out-goings in their lives, such as buying their first home or starting a family, they will have the option of taking a break from their loan repayments. They will be able to take a break of one year, two or more, for up to five years. That will help graduates make flexible choices about their finances at key points in their lives and careers.
	In the next three years, the reforms will help us meet growing aspirations for higher education within the comprehensive spending review settlement and allow us to fulfil commitments that we have already made. The proportion of 18 to 30-year-olds who go on to higher education will continue to increase and universities will receive the same funding for teaching each student in real terms, so that excellence in teaching and learning can be maintained.
	The reforms promote aspiration, offer opportunity and provide support to students from hard-working families. They promote the world-class standards of our colleges and universities and help deliver the skills and knowledge that business and society need in a global economy. I commend them to the House.

David Willetts: Let me begin, alongside all the other welcomes that you have already heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his post. I look forward to debating and questioning the Government on the important issues that he raised today.
	We agree with the Government about wanting the greatest possible access to higher education of good quality. We also recognise that, contrary to some of the fears that were expressed, it looks as if top-up fees have not so far made the problem of access to university worse. However, it must also be acknowledged that we do not appear to be making significant progress in improving access, as the figure for students from modest backgrounds has been stable at about 28 per cent. over the past few years. We therefore welcome any measures that the Government can take to improve access to higher education in future. However, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for more information about some of his proposals and their scope.
	First, what about part-time students? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many students from modest backgrounds who go to university are looking for part-time study? Progress has been made in more modular courses. Will any of the provisions that he announced today make it easier for part-time students at university?
	Secondly, will the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about who will be responsible for delivering some of the measures that he announced? Aimhigher is an excellent programme, which involves links between universities and schools. Is not it a pity that we now have two education Departments when, in the past, the programme was clearly in the Department for Education and Skills? Which Department will be responsible for Aimhigher?
	We welcome the extension of the mentoring scheme that the Secretary of State announced. It appears to involve people at university visiting schools and arranging programmes in schools through the school system. Surely it will be far more complicated now that two Departments are involved instead of one.
	The Secretary of State referred to extra spending of 400 million. Will he confirm that the sum is within the education spending totals that the then Chancellor announced earlier this year, and thus in the totals that were already set? If so, will he make it clear where exactly the resources are coming from in the overall Budget that the now Prime Minister announced when Chancellor of the Exchequer?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have mutterings from the second Bench. The House listened courteously to the first statement; that should also apply to this statement.

David Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Secretary of State can respond to the questions, which will concern many people in higher education, including students.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us more about the prospects for the future of the bursaries scheme? There has been media comment in the past few weeks about what might happen to bursaries, and the Minister with responsibility for higher education, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), made carefully drafted comments, in which he appeared to cast doubt on their long-term future. Will changes to bursaries form any part of the package and funding changes that he announced?
	On a wider point, does the Secretary of State accept that approximately 90 per cent. of people who leave school with two good A-levels already get to university? The deep challenge that we must all confront is that, if we want more people to have access to university with the right qualifications to benefit from higher education, we need to examine what is happening in schools. Is not the fundamental challenge, which everyone raises with us, increasing access to the GCSEs and A-levels that students need if they are to have a prospect of getting to university? Is not that the problem that the Government need to tackle?
	Let me tell the Secretary of State about a visit that I recently paid to one of the excellent summer schools, which are aimed at broadening access to university. There, teenagers who had not previously thought of going to university suddenly realised that they could benefit from it, and then one saw their shock when they realised that the GCSEs that they had been studying, and perhaps the A-level for which they had been entered, were not those that they needed to do the course about which they had become excited. The Government's targets and points system mean that many teenagers are encouraged to do the GCSEs and A-levels that do not offer them the best prospect of getting to university.
	Meanwhile, study of the subjects that are often crucial to getting to our most academically valuable universities are declining. There is a decline in the number of people who study modern languages and individual real sciences at GSCE and A-level in state schools, and an increase in the proportion of students who study the crunchy and more academic subjectsfurther maths and modern languagesat private schools. How can the Government achieve their objectives of widening participation if the only lever that they pull changes the maintenance grant when fundamental improvement in the quality of education at school is the key? Is not that another reason why splitting the Department for Education and Skills in two will make it harder to achieve those important objectives?

John Denham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks and congratulate him on his appointmentI welcome him to his new job. I have known him for a long time and always admired his wide interest in social policy. In his previous job in particular I admired his intellectual honesty, and I hope that he gets more support from those behind him in his current job than he did in his previous post.
	My impression is that the hon. Gentleman does not have a great deal to say about the package. It is a shame that he has not grasped its importance to delivering two things: the skills that we need as a society to prosper and the opportunity for many of our fellow citizens, especially young people, who currently do not fulfil their full potential. I hope that, perhaps in later debates, we will get a more generous welcome for the Government's reforms today.
	Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points. The package is not about part-time students. However, last year, the Government introduced a system of support for fees. Many higher education institutions offer support for part-time students through access to learning funds. In 1997, when the hon. Gentleman was last in government, there was no support for part-time students, and most of today's part-time students would not have had the chance to be in higher education. Part-time study is important and we are building, especially with industry, co-funded courses in higher education. We expect many, if not all, to be on a part-time basis, and to deliver the higher quality vocational skills that are needed. We therefore recognise the importance of part-time education in the overall picture.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the splitting or creation of the two Departments. Some years ago, I was the Minister with responsibility for children and young people, and personally I feel that there is a compelling logic to having a Departmentwhich the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) now leadsthat is able to look at family and children's issues in such a coherent way. There will be certain issues at the interface between my right hon. Friend's Department and mine, which we will sort outthey are easy to identify, and they will be easy to tacklebut the gains for our children from having the focus that the new structure offers will be enormous. I do not believe that it will make the slightest difference to the already successful scheme involving university students going back into school to work with students, particularly in science, maths, technology and engineeringthe subjects that the hon. Gentleman is concerned aboutto ensure that they have the right qualifications. We have already recognised the importance of that work.
	The bursary scheme is enormously important. I have been in this post for only a few days

David Willetts: Five days?

John Denham: Eight days. I have been in post for only eight days, but the Minister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell) encourages me to say that we have no plans to change the bursary scheme. It is an important part of all this. Indeed, my statement slightly understated the extent to which some students will be better off, because many bursary schemes offer an amount that is much more generous than the minimum that I mentioned.
	Of course higher school standards are important throughout the system. We already have the best ever school standards. The standards in our poorest performing schools have improved faster than across the education system as a whole, and that will continue to provide students who will come into higher education. We all know, however, that at the moment some of those students will get to the age of 16 and lose their way and go out of the system because they do not think that university is for them. These measures will address the needs of those students and get them into higher education.

Barry Sheerman: I genuinely warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new job. What a way to start. His statement is good news for working people and their families, and for students who will be encouraged to enter higher education for the first time. Those of us who have looked at this area know that what is needed is the full package, and that the earlier we start, the better. My right hon. Friend will know about my passion for the mentoring role, which is at the heart of the recommendations. I welcome them very sincerely.
	Of course, all of us who are interested in education will add one proviso. The full package must go right the way through, keeping these young, talented people in the system so that they go into higher education and then into postgraduate education, so that they can become PhDs, researchers and leaders in technology and innovation. But we will give my right hon. Friend a little time before he needs to come back to us on that.

John Denham: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. However the Select Committee structures are determined by the House, I am sure that we will be drawing on his considerable expertise in this area and in this new role. Mentoring is enormously important, and some young people do not get the necessary support at home to achieve their full potential. If we can provide it in other ways, that is enormously important.
	A second matter on which I agree with my hon. Friend involves another part of the story that we can tell. The higher education institutions are doing increasingly effective work on ensuring that, once students have entered higher education, they stay there and complete their first degree or other qualification as successfully as possible. That is essential. Internationally, we have a very good completion rate in higher education. I am convinced that the measures that we have put in place today will relieve some of the pressures that can divert students who feel that they cannot complete their courses, or who are diverted from their studies by having too much paid work. The provisions will help people to do as well as they possibly can at university.

Sarah Teather: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job. May I say how much I look forward to working with him? I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister was here earlier. I am afraid that he is not in his place now, as usual for the Liberal Democrat response. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that he was here at the start of the statement; I hope that that means he will be making student support a priority. I certainly welcome the recognition that the previous system was woefully inadequate, and that a family on an annual income of 17,500 is hardly wealthy. My concern, however, is whether the extension of maintenance grants to more people might be a prelude to lifting the cap. Is that the Secretary of State's intention? I would be grateful if he could make that clear.
	The Secretary of State spoke earlier about part-time students. Does he recognise the challenges for students who are studying at less than 50 per cent. of a full-time course and who therefore have no access whatever to maintenance grants? Part-time students are often older or poorer. They are more likely to be from an ethnic minority background, and very likely to have caring responsibilities. Yet they are just the kind of people whom Leitch recommends must be attracted into education. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the income of such students is severely affected by having to pay fees up front? Does he propose to change that? I must remind him that we were vehemently opposed to the introduction of those fees in the first place. Similarly, does he have any plans to extend maintenance loans to students studying courses in further education colleges?
	Is the Secretary of State considering introducing a national bursary system? I should like to add my comments to those that others have made about the increase in funding for mentors. That is welcome, as long as it happens at a very early age, because young people make choices about their future as they enter secondary school. He failed to answer a question from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on how the proposals are to be funded. Does he intend to fund them by cutting other aspects of the higher education package, or should we expect to hear of changes to the interest rates on maintenance loans over the next few years? I hope that he will make that clear in his response.

John Denham: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I, too, was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on the Treasury Bench for the statement. I confess that I might have had more difficulty getting this package through in my first eight days in office had it not been for the considerable support that I have received from him.
	Nothing that we have announced today prejudges the review of the fee system which is in the pipeline for 2009. This will not affect it in any way. It will happen as has been promised, and nothing should be read into today's announcement in regard to that review. Part-time students have already been discussed. A decision had to be made about the intensity of study that would attract assistance with fees, and the decision was made a few months or a year ago to limit that assistance to those who were studying at 50 per cent. intensity or more. There are some people who fall outside that category, but many of them are in work, and that is the reason for the low intensity of their study. Also, there are special provisions for those whose ability to study is limited by a disability. We put together a good package; it was certainly much better than anything that had existed previously for part-time students.
	We have no plans to have a national bursary system. There is a minimum requirement, but we believe that there are advantages in individual institutions shaping the bursary scheme to their intake and to the type of students that they attract.
	On the CSR settlement and allocation, the House will have to wait until later in the year for the details to be published. However, what I have announced today comes within our CSR settlement limits. Nothing that I have done today puts in jeopardy any commitments that we have already made in higher education, including the funding of student places or the desire to increase the number of participants in higher education.

Andrew Smith: May I very warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for this exciting and important new Department? He has made an excellent start with today's statement, which will be strongly welcomed by students at both the universities in Oxford and by everyone in the country who wants to extend access to university to people from poorer backgrounds. I particularly welcome the guarantee, which is a radical and progressive innovation. Will it not be crucial for that to be effectively communicated to prospective students and their families? Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about how he will get the message across about just what a big improvement this is?

John Denham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. He raises a very important issue. We already have a communications group, which my Department inherited from the previous Department, and its members include Universities UK, the National Union of Students, the Association of Colleges and other key stakeholders. We will want to bring that group together at a very early stage to look at how we can effectively communicate that message right down through the system. Taking into account the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we will need to ensure that that message goes to young people who are well below the age of 16, so that expectations build up among much younger school children and their parents about the system that lies ahead of them.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I tell the Secretary of State that although it is natural to want to address the Member who asked the question, other hon. Members might not be able to hear him unless he speaks into the microphone?

Michael Fallon: Will the Secretary of State clarify that the effect of his announcement is that the staff-student ratio will remain the same and not continue to worsen? Is not the real issue with access that the millions spent on school buildings have not been matched by the changes in curriculum, testing and teachers' working practices that are necessary to challenge ability and to improve standards in our secondary schools?

John Denham: What I have said, and I repeat, is that the settlement enables us to say to universities that we will maintain the real level of funding per student as student numbers increase. Of course, individual institutions have to take decisions about how they want to staff themselves up. It is not for me to start dictating that. However, that is the funding commitment, which I am able to repeat.
	As for schools, I simply say that I know that the standards that we are achieving in our schools are at the highest ever level. We have had particularly rapid improvements in some of the most poorly performing schools and most poorly performing areas. There is a way to go, and we want to build on that success, but I do not think it is the case that we have failed to raise school standards across this country; quite the opposite.

Andy Reed: I welcome the package, not just for the 14,000 students at Loughborough university, but for many of the parents for whom it will make a difference. While the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is in the Chamber, may I ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to use the Sure Start programme to drive down even deeper and earlier in a child's life to encourage those parents who probably would not have considered higher education as an option for their child even at that early stage? Staying on in education beyond 16 was never considered in our family, so I know from experience that encouraging that expectation is an important consideration.
	Will my right hon. Friend at some stage explain to me, perhaps in writing, what additional support can be given to the type of students at Loughborough university, with its connection with the 2012 Olympics and the additional support that is required for our future athletes who are based there?

John Denham: I hope that it will be acceptable if I write to my hon. Friend on the particular point about students at Loughborough. It is important, and probably needs a better reply than I would give this afternoon.
	As for taking the message right down through society, I have a hope for the Departmenta rather bigger one almost than I have set outthat we create and embed a culture of going to higher education across our society in a way that we have not yet achieved. We have got more people going to university and have improved access from the poorer groups, although not to the extent that we want, but we need to achieve a culture in this country whereby most parentsindeed, all parentsthink that going into higher education is an option for their child if they have the ability to do it. Sure Start is one of the ways in which parents' aspirations are changed. The most remarkable thing that I found out about Sure Start in my area is that we thought that it was for the children, but it was the parents who suddenly realised how much more they could do. It is because of that that children benefit so much more. We will work to get that message across.

Sammy Wilson: First, may I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome his first statement? It is essential to raise aspirations among youngsters from low-income families and to remove the financial impediments that there may be for them to access higher education.
	The Secretary of State is probably awarethis may be uncomfortable for the Labour party and some members of the Conservative partythat because of Northern Ireland's excellent grammar school system and the retention of academic selection, 25 per cent. more youngsters from low-income families gain admission to higher education. In light of that, and the fact that many of them will go to universities in Scotland, England and Wales, will he tell us which measures will apply to youngsters from Northern Ireland, so that there is uniformity of financial provision for them? What discussions does he intend to have with the Ministers for Employment and Learning and for Education to ensure that the parts of the package that might not apply to students from Northern Ireland will be replicated in Northern Ireland through the Department there?

John Denham: I made it clear, but I repeat the point, that this is a package for English domiciled students. It applies to them, and them alone, wherever they study within the United Kingdom. On grammar schools, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), whose views are rather distinct from his.

David Taylor: I warmly welcome the statement. It is true that the number of young people from working-class and lower-income families who are at university is still too low, and in terms of the Oxbridge and Russell group universities, the level is a disgrace. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he intends to promote a review of the education maintenance allowance? Eligibility for that is crucial for the commitment that he made to support 16-year-olds through higher education. Some young people are still just beyond the fringes of eligibility for EMA and would benefit from higher education, but they are leaving the system at that point. We need to do more for that group of young people.

John Denham: The EMA is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and I cannot commit him to policy changes in that area. I said in my statement, however, that we would need to look at the detail of how the EMA works, not least to ensure that in a new system, and one that is implicitly much more generous, it is run in a rigorous way that ensures that only those people who are entitled get it. If, in the process of that review, we can consider the issues that my hon. Friend raises, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I will want to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that hon. Members can see how many people are seeking to catch my eye. If we can have one brief question and, hopefully, a fairly brief response from the Secretary of State, we will get through as many hon. Members as we possibly can.

Adam Price: May I ask the Secretary of State about one thing that is non-devolved as far as we are concerned? I ask him to reject the calls for the imposition of commercial rates on student loans. I urge him to look at a report from Canada published today that points out the problems with commercial rates for student loan repayments there. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as different models of student financial support are emerging in the different territories of the United Kingdom, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to convene a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee so that we can consider the lessons learned across the UK as those different models develop?

John Denham: You have asked me to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I merely say that nothing in the package makes any changes to the loan repayment regime other than the welcome flexibility that graduates who start their courses in a couple years' time will get. I am intrigued by a nationalist raising the matter of trying to co-ordinate better the consequences of devolution because one of the issues is that devolved Administrations take different decisions about such things. However, if there are things that it makes sense to consider, we should do so.

Paul Farrelly: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his appointment? It is a long-overdue return to the Government for a man of true conviction. I know that he worked very hard with all of us to increase the student support that was on offer during the sometimes lively debate on top-up fees. May I congratulate him further on making such an immediate impact, with a package of measures that will certainly lessen disincentives, raise aspirations and I hope increase social mobility? The EMA has made an impact in my constituency, but the real issue is not so much getting people into further education, but ensuring that they complete their courses at 17. I look forward to working with him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in addressing those issues in areas such as north Staffordshire.

John Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is clear that the message coming from hon. Members on both sides of the House is that the measures that I have announced today, and the things that we already have in place, are underpinned by what happens in schools at an earlier age and in families when children are at an earlier age. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will have heard the same things and I am certain that we will work closely together to ensure that we address the issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House today.

John Bercow: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his richly deserved appointment, which should be popular in all parts of the House?
	Given the need to strengthen our higher education sector in the name both of our national and international competitiveness, and of the fulfilment of individuals' potential, may I tell the Secretary of State that the proposals that he has announced today to increase access, to make it more affordable and to introduce greater flexibility in loan repayments are all extremely welcome and should have the support of Members of all parties in the House, especially if those proposals extend to people in further education colleges who are undertaking courses at higher level?

John Denham: I am grateful for the welcome. Some of the higher education courses and foundation degrees to which the regime applies are delivered in further education colleges.

Joan Humble: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and on his excellent statement today? I understand why he has concentrated on young people and on getting them to aim higher, but do his welcome announcements today also apply to more mature students who wish to take full-time degrees, because many of those people lost out on higher education when they were 17 or 18? If that is the case, how does he intend to advertise that fact?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. I have focused on the measures that will help to bring a new generation of young students into higher education, but the new financial regime will apply, as does the current one, to older students who are going into full-time courses. My earlier answer about the role of the communications group should address that issue. I hope that it will get the message across. The Leitch report made it clear that we cannot meet all our skill needs for 2020 from the rising generation of studentswe must do it from today's work force, too.

Nigel Evans: I, too, welcome the presence of the Prime Minister during part of the statement. I do not know whether that was part of a Cabinet mentoring scheme, but I do not think that the Secretary of State needs it.
	I do not think that poverty or low income should ever be a barrier to entry into any form of education, at whatever level. When I went to school in a working-class area of Swansea, there were people in my primary school who were far brighter than I was, yet for all sorts of reasons [Interruption.] I see that the Secretary of State agrees. It is wonderful to bring the entire House together on one issue. I suspect that low income was part of the problem.
	Will the Secretary of State work closely with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that this initiative is taken right down to the primary level, so that youngsters from the poorest backgrounds and the poorest schools are not deprived of the opportunity to get to the top in education?

John Denham: We will certainly do that. When, in due course, we publish plans to implement the rest of the Leitch proposals on raising skill levels, I hope that we will add another element to that, because if we can get those parents who are in a poor job or a dead-end job because their skills are poor to gain skills and to get a better job, those parents' belief not just in what they can achieve but in what their children can achieve goes up.

Helen Southworth: I welcome the statement. It is excellent news for my constituents and for people throughout the country. It is fantastic. Will the Secretary of State work with the universities to get them to enhance their career and personal development opportunities for young people at university, so that those students who perhaps have not had access to the kind of knowledge that some people have about how to get a good job do not just get a degree but throughout their lives get the benefit of that education and get top-quality jobs?

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point that I will discuss with the universities when I meet with their representatives. I know that, in part, that requirement reflects the demand from business, as employers, to ensure that students study the degrees that will be most useful to them and their own future. Often, those degrees that do not involve research or specialisms will be those that employers need. We need to ensure that the interface is right.

Evan Harris: I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that the fact that only 28 per cent. of people from poorer backgrounds are in higher education is a policy failure, rather than something that one can be satisfied with. Will the modest increases in the maintenance grant make any difference to the overall level of top-up debt, which is deterring graduates from entering public sector jobs such as teaching, including the teaching of science in schools?

John Denham: As I said earlier, we cannot be satisfied that only 28 per cent. of students come from low-income backgrounds, so we must improve things. I believe that, when the hon. Gentleman looks at the package, he will judge it significant, particularly for those students and families who currently think that higher education is not for them because they worry either about the cost of studying when at university or college, or about how they will meet repayments when they finish. Put together, the elements in the package will be seen as significant by many students who at the moment are not certain whether they want to go into higher education.

Martin Salter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome return to Government. He will be aware that the novel practice of not leaking statements to the media in advance presents new challenges for us Back Benchersand clearly for Opposition Front Benchers, tooin formulating our responses. I genuinely welcome his announcement, in particular the increased threshold for the maximum salary cut-off point for eligibility for maintenance grants. The previous figure of some 33,000 caused problems in constituencies such as Reading, West and indeed in Southampton, where wages may be higher, but housing costs are higher, too.

John Denham: My hon. Friend is quite right on both points. I think that everyone, including the media, will be adjusting to the new regime. That certainly applies to the official Opposition, who can no longer turn on the Today programme in order to find out what will happen later in the day. I think that is genuinely to the benefit of all sides.
	It is important to send a message to those on higher incomes to the effect that we support those hard-working families who are doing the right thing in encouraging their children to go into higher education. The biggest gainers are in the low to middle-income groups, but there are other people who need to know that the Government are on their side and their children's side when they go into higher education. That is the powerful message that comes out of the package I have announced.

Julian Lewis: I am a near neighbour of the right hon. Gentleman and have worked with him on local campaigns of common concern, so it is a great pleasure to congratulate him on reaching the Cabinet. Well done.
	I went to the same state school as my father, the difference being that, whereas he had to leave at the age of 14 in the 1920s, I was able, on a full grant, to go to Oxford university. Am I right in thinking that some of the top universities are allowed to charge differential fees these days? If that is right, does not some attention still need to be paid to ensure that, even if people going to universities are better off in terms of grant, people from poorer backgrounds should not be inhibited from going to the top universities? In my day, if someone got the grant, they could go to any university, no matter how good, that would take them.

John Denham: The universities all work within the same regime laid down by Parliament, which enables them to ask for variable fees, but there is a cap on that, which has been set by Parliament. That will be subject to review, which is open and not determined, in 2009. The truth is that the majority of universities charge the full permissible fee, but not all do.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend's appointment was clearly inspirational, and his statement today is inspiring to many constituents of mine on low incomes. He says that the regime will start in 2008. I understand that, but will there be some transitional arrangement, because there could be a tendency to buck out on 2007 if we cannot offer an interim measure to those who go to university this year?

John Denham: I understand my hon. Friend's point. One of the reasons for starting in 2008 is simply that it takes time to get a properly administered system in place. If we were unable to put the full system in place in 2008, we would not be able to put in place a shorter term transitional system that was not chaotic. I have looked back over experience because I asked a similar question to my hon. Friend's when we were discussing previous proposals, and that experience shows that changes in grant, fee or loan arrangements usually cause a small alteration in behaviour that is rapidly compensated for within the next two or three years and the situation then gets back on to trend. Therefore, although there might be a minor variation in behaviour, if there is, we will still be back on trend soon after the system is set up.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the package will not be financed with new money. What is being cut to pay for it?

John Denham: When the comprehensive spending review is published, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn that we have been able to maintain the commitments that we have made, including those in higher education, such as its expansion and on per-student financing.

Mark Lazarowicz: As I am not a nationalist, my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I want the reciprocal arrangements for student support between the different parts of the UK to be strengthened, especially as recent Scottish National party decisions have threatened those arrangements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that talented students in Scotland, particularly from low income families, continue to be able to attend universities in England, and that students from other parts of the UK are able to attend Scottish universities? Will he talk to the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations about strengthening those reciprocal arrangements and ensuring that no divisions develop? Students should be able to enjoy an educational experience in other parts of the country.

John Denham: I agree that it is right that talented students should be able to attend the right university for them; that is an important statement of principle. That there are different financial regimes reflects the fact that we have devolved Administrations, but it would be sensible for the higher education Ministers of the various Administrations to be in reasonably regular contact to address how their systems are evolving and developing.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the package. It will enable almost all my constituents' children who attend university to do so on full or partial grant, which is important for them. Northampton university has important teaching and nursing faculties. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his proposals to support teaching and nursing students?

John Denham: All I can say today is that nothing is changing in the student finance arrangements other than that there will be considerably more generous provision and greater flexibility and choice in what I have announced. Future graduatesthose starting their courses in 2008 and beyondwill be able to enjoy that. We are making no changes at all for particular groups of students. However, I am pleased that my hon. Friend thinks that the vast majority of her constituents who have an interest in higher education will benefit. That will be the case in many constituencies throughout the country.

Anne Snelgrove: In a cracking first statement, my right hon. Friend identified many of the measures that will help us to attract more young people from low income homes in Swindon into higher education. However, as a good local university can also attract such young people into higher education, does he share my disappointment that the university of Bath has pulled out of developing five campuses in Swindon? Will his Department help us to identify an excellent replacement for the university of Bath, so that we do not have to rely on the developers finding us one?

John Denham: My hon. Friend has raised a constituency issue that is clearly of enormous importance to her. I encourage her talk to me or the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell). about the details of it to discover whether anything can usefully be done. It is not my job to run individual institutionsuniversities and higher education colleges will be pleased to hear me say that. If we can assist, however, we will try to do so.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. He represents a Southampton constituency, but I am sure that my Portsmouth constituents will not hold that against him as they will greatly benefit from the proposals that he has announced. He mentioned mentors and role models. Will he ensure that they operate not only at secondary school level but also in primary schools? Research conducted at Portsmouth university shows that if the aspiration to go into higher education does not exist at age 10 or 11, it certainly will not exist at 16.

John Denham: I welcome what my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has said. There is a mood in the House today to stretch measures down to cover students at a younger age. The details of the scheme are not set in stone, and I will be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about how to design the expansion of student mentoring so that we can address the issues that have been raised by Members from all parts of the House.

David Kidney: The measures will give a boost to universities that want to recruit more young people from more diverse backgrounds. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong emphasis on inclusivity in the recruitment and admission policies of Staffordshire university? I invite him to visit Stafford soon to meet vice-chancellor Christine King, her senior management team and National Union of Students officers to discuss whether such practices could be applied more generally around the country.

John Denham: While I am wary of promising to visit the many places that I could be invited to visit, let me make it clear that I and the entire ministerial team will want to spend as much time as possible outside Whitehall and this House visiting those involved in the provision of education, training and research. If we can visit Staffordshire, we will certainly do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lynne Jones.

Helen Jones: It is me, not Lynne, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I add to the chorus of congratulations offered to my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be of great benefit to families in my constituency. However, I ask him not to be diverted by the siren voices that call for us to stop looking at providing fair access. When he has his feet firmly under the table, will he look into why some universities are much more successful at recruiting students from lower income backgrounds than others, and also at the bursary system because those universities that currently recruit many students from poorer backgrounds often lose out because of the costs of the bursaries they pay?

John Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Although I strongly share the view that has been expressed that the aspiration to go to university starts at an early age and that we must address that all the way through the system, there are clear differences in the way in which different higher education institutions approach that issue at the point when students apply. We cannot place all the responsibility for diversity and inclusion at that point of application to higher education, although there is a responsibility then. As I get on top of my job I will be happy to look at how different higher education institutions approach the issue and the lessons we can learn from that.

Orders of the Day

Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill  [ Lords ]

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Amendment of definition of 'estate agency work'

'(1) Section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) insert
	(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for amending the definition of 'estate agency work', as set out in this section.
	(1B) Regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'. [Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2 Standards of competenc e
	'(1) Section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) (standards of competence) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute
	(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations made by statutory instrument designate any body of persons as an approved body to which people engaged in estate agency work, including both the sale and lettings of residential property, must belong.
	(2) The approved bodies must make membership conditional on signing up to rules and codes of conduct, which will
	(a) set minimum standards of training and qualifications required, and
	(b) ensure that firms have adequate professional indemnity insurance and, as appropriate, clients money protection insurance.
	(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult
	(a) organisations representing the interests of consumers,
	(b) other persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons who have an interest in the matter.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the Minister to his new post. We had a brief word earlier; he has previously covered many of the duties involved, and it is a pleasure to have dealings with him again. I also apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). He is abroad on long-standing European business and cannot be present, so I am dealing with this Bill in his place, although I did not take it through Committee.
	One of the matters that received a lot of attention in Committee was part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the regulation of estate agency. New clause 1 and the Liberal Democrats' new clause 2 give us a very good opportunity to have a real discussion on Report today about what the Bill does and does not cover in terms of regulation of the residential market. There are indeed some grey areas, which I shall come to in due course.
	The purpose of our new clause is to permit the Secretary of State to amend the definition of estate agency work by statutory instrument, subject to affirmation by both Houses. This follows the amendments that we tabled in Committee to amend the definition of estate agency work in the Estate Agents Act 1979. Clearly, 1979 was a long time ago, and the residential market has moved on a great deal since that legislation was enacted. Indeed, residential lettings, which are not covered by the Bill, have increased by at least a third since then. The purpose of the new clause is therefore to amend the definition of estate agency work in the 1979 Act to take into account direct and off-plan sales by house builders, and to bring residential lettings within its scope. As a result, all those activities would be subject to the new redress and other procedures in the Billwe welcome themwhich would aid consumers.
	The Government rejected the Conservative amendments, claiming that they wanted to consult consumers and the industry before deciding whether the law needed amending, and I have no doubt that the Minister will say that today. The idea is that Ministers would in future introduce legislation to deal with that subject. However, the Government have had more than enough time to consider these matters, and there has been more than enough in the way of studies and lobbying from the various groups involved to be able to consider how the residential market should be regulated. The new clause allows us, as I said, to debate the need to update the definition of estate agency work to take into account the rising number of direct sales of houses and the need to include residential lettings so that everyone is covered under the improved redress scheme.
	Estate agents are already regulated by a number of Acts. The 1979 Act contains a negative licensing provision whereby an estate agent who has breached the Act's provisions and/or been convicted of certain criminal offences may be banned. However, that is a negative, after-the-event licensing regime. Section 22 of the 1979 Act contains a provision to regulate the standards of competence for estate agency, but it was never enacted. The Earl of Caithness tried to move an amendment on Third Reading in that regard, but it was not carried.
	The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 made provision for it to be a criminal offence to make false or misleading statements, in written or oral form, about certain matters relating to property. Estate agents were further regulated by the Enterprise Act 2002, which enabled the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards to obtain injunctions to stop estate agents breaching protective legislation, so there is already a considerable amount of legislation surrounding estate agents, who were of course further regulated by the Housing Act 2004. Some 10,000 estate agents are members of the National Association of Estate Agents, but it is estimated that only 66 per cent. of all estate agents are members of that professional body.
	At this point, I should declare an interest as one of only four chartered surveyors in the House.

Richard Benyon: Five.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Ahmy hon. Friend, who is now an Opposition Whip, has pointed out that he, too, is a chartered surveyor. I was of course including him among the four, but I congratulate him not only on being a member of the eminent body of chartered surveyors, but on his promotion to the Opposition Whips' Bench. It is great to see him there. So there are only five chartered surveyors in the House, and I am delighted to be here.
	Perhaps I should say a little more about estate agents and some of the practices that they get up to when I discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), but suffice it to say at this stage that the purpose of our new clause is to update the regulation of estate agents. Although we do not approve of the Liberal Democrats' proposal for a full licensing scheme, not including the residential letting sector, the direct sales from developers sector and some agency sales via the internet are a considerable lacunaperhaps the biggest in the Bill. We want to be very clear whether the Bill does cover that latter activity; I hope that the Minister can enlighten us when he replies.
	As I said, the rental sector has increased by at least a third since the 1979 Act was passed. The letting sector is huge and if today's interest rate rises are anything to go by, I suspect that it will become even bigger. Of course, it deals with some of the more vulnerable in our societythose who are less able to defend themselves when things to wrongso not including it in the Bill seems a huge lacuna. I should be grateful if the Minister enlightened us as to why the Bill does not cover the rental market.
	Also on the increaseand also not included in the Billis direct sale from developers to consumers. Anybody involved in the housing market, particularly in the south-east, knows that this sector, too, is growing apace. However, it seems that that sector is not to be regulated, either. A lot of people buy houses off-plan directly from developers. They might be first-time buyers, and they probably have not got the expertise genuinely to assess whether the developer in question is selling them a pup, or they are getting the purchase that they envisage from the perhaps rather over-coloured plans. That is the second sector that, in our view, the Bill does not adequately cover, and which new clause 1 would include.
	The third sector consists of the various types of organisationsand they do varywhich sell or let houses via the internet. According to a rough estimate that I made the other day, there are at least 100 such organisations offering services in that way. Again, the more vulnerable will be tempted to use their internet search engines to find some form of letting arrangement and to deal with such an agency. They might not have the knowledge to understand whether their transaction is being handled through a true and honest mechanism. For that reason, such activities need in some way to be regulated under the Bill.
	Before the Minister replies, I should point out that our new clause would not alter the Bill one iota: all it would do is give the Secretary of State the power to deal with such matters. As the market is developing in a fairly dynamic way, particularly on the internet, it would be very sensible to include this power in the Bill. It might prove to be like section 22 of the 1979 Act, in that it is never used, but given that the House is unlikely, owing to pressure on parliamentary time, to return to the issue of regulating estate agencies for at least five yearsperhaps even 10 years, given how this House operates and the sheer volume of legislation that it has to handlenot dealing with this issue now would be a real missed opportunity. I hope that the Minister will think again, even at this late stage, although I do not hold out any particular hopes.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park will move her new clause 2 in a minute, but I hope that it is in order, while I am on my feet, just to say a few words about it nowor would you prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I deal with it after the hon. Lady has moved it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, we are debating both new clauses, so the hon. Gentleman may speak to both now.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) worked very hard and constructively in Committee, along with my hon. Friends, and I understandfor some of the reasons that I have already set outwhy she wishes to try to provide a positive regulation scheme for estate agents, although I do not support that. There is considerable legislation covering estate agents already, and there is more in this Bill.

Tom Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a high regard for him and it is in that spirit that I wish to put a question to him. I was a member of the Committee, although as a Scots Member I would not have dreamt of intervening on matters so vital to England, and I was left with a doubt in my mind. On the one hand, the official Opposition argue about the role of estate agents, and the hon. Gentleman rightly expressed his worries about how often we can address these issues; on the other, they did not seem to be keen on regulation. They seemed to think that market forces would be sufficient. If the hon. Gentleman could clarify that point, I would be very grateful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and the clarity with which he made his intervention demonstrates the quality of the service that he gives to the House on a wide range of issues. I congratulate him on that. He will know that my party's whole stance is opposition to unnecessary regulation and we believe that it is unnecessary to have wholesale regulation of estate agents. As I have said, there is already a considerable volume of legislation that licenses estate agents. The Bill provides a redress scheme and further penalties, and we would like to see how that works out before jumping in with a sledgehammer to try to make it more difficult for youngsters and others to set up as estate agents.
	As a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, I would like to see estate agents operating at the highest possible level. If new clause 2 is accepted, there would still be rogue estate agents, because some of the bright youngsters, who are bright enough to be rogues, will still pass whatever exams or tests might emerge from the licensing scheme. So a licensing scheme of itself would not stop unethical behaviour. It could set a framework and make it easier to deal with rogue estate agents, but it would not stop them. I would like to set up a framework that encouraged everybody to operate to higher standards. I would like all estate agents be members of the RICS or the National Association of Estate Agents, and put that in their windows. Those bodies could then set standards for continuing professional development, training and so on. Just having a licensing scheme would not stop rogue estate agents.
	It will be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks, because the Government opposed the new clause in Committee. He also has to answer the question that the right hon. Gentleman poses.

Lorely Burt: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this issue, does he agree that someone who intentionally sets out to mislead or even defraud may have all the necessary qualifications? That also applies to solicitors. However, would not a positive licensing system mean that everyone would at least start out with a minimum qualification and understanding of what they are doing? Therefore the likelihood of estate agents acting in ignorance would be reduced and that would be a great benefit to the industry and the customer.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is a reasonable point, and I partly agree and partly disagree with the hon. Lady. She made my case by talking about rogue solicitors. We generally regard the legal profession as having some of the highest standards of any professional body. However, that does not stop rogue solicitors. We still see the odd court case in which a solicitor is struck off. The solicitor's body and regulation by Government means that rogue solicitors can be banned.
	As for whether the scheme would raise standards, there is already enough legislation for estate agents. The Bill will introduce new redress schemes and penalties and we need to see how that settles down, although I am not saying that we would be opposed to a full licensing scheme for estate agents for ever more. I know that the hon. Lady probably will not agree with me, but I hope that I have given her some reasons why we will not support new clause 2.
	I want to encourage estate agents to work to the highest possible standards. We need to ensure that the public are better informed about what the professional bodiesthe RICS, the NAEA and the Association of Residential Letting Agentsdo and that we strongly advise them to use members of those organisations.
	It may be useful for the House to consider some of the ways in which estate agents operate, and the Minister may also wish to do so when he rejects the overall estate agents licensing scheme. As a professional, I am well aware of some of the pitfalls that estate agents can encounter and thus fall short of what they should do. The whole issue of offers is a difficult one and I am not sure that all estate agents handle offers in the most open and transparent way. They may not always report them to their clients as they should or give their client proper advice. They may use offers to wind up the price or fail to report them if they are trying to get a lower price on a house for a friend. The area of offers can be difficult for some less scrupulous estate agents.
	Estate agents and chartered surveyorsmy own professionhave often been criticised over valuations, which can be difficult and which may vary for several reasons. In a fast-rising market, such as that in London today, or even a fast-falling market that might occur in a slump, one can value a property one day without knowing that the next that special purchaser will come along and offer 20 per cent. more, making one's valuation look stupid. That often happens.
	 Which? has been campaigning alongside the hon. Lady to introduce a full licensing scheme and it sent round anonymous inspectors to see whether estate agents were signing unfair contracts. It found that in many cases the contracts were unfair. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the other provisions in the Bill on solicited calls, as opposed to unsolicited calls, will also apply to estate agents. Let us suppose that an estate agent went to see someone on a solicited basisthat is to say, an appointment has been madeand said, It will cost this much for us to provide this service to let your house. Please sign on the dotted line now. If the consumer decides overnight that the charge is unreasonable, will the solicited provisions in the Bill apply to the transaction? Will the consumer have the right to rescind the signed contract the next day?
	I welcome the redress scheme, but it does not go far enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said on Second Reading, estate agents can be fined up to 25,000 under the existing legislation, but in only six of the 497 cases brought in 2005 did the fines amount to more than 3,000. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Bill will give the redress scheme real teeth.
	The Minister may well say that the Government are to have a review of the three categories that I have set out, but that would be no more than an excuse for inaction. I hope that he will tell us precisely what the Bill covers and, more important, that he will describe the Government's thinking about lettings, internet sales and direct development sales, and his proposals for their regulation in the future.

Susan Kramer: I also welcome the Minister to his new job. This debate is my farewell song on these matters, before I start to deal with planes, trains and automobiles, but it has been a privilege to have been associated with this Bill.
	We fully support the spirit and intent of new clause 1, although the drafting is somewhat strange, as it does not make it clear that the proposal is meant to apply to the regulation of lettings and direct sales. We know that that is the intention from the debates that we have had, but the text contains none of the relevant language. We also note that the new clause contains very little discussion of timing, and makes no mention of consultation. I associate myself with the various observations that have been made about the lack of adequate regulation for lettings and direct sale, but I shall not repeat arguments that have been expressed in Committee and again today.
	The key purpose of new clause 2 is to establish minimum standards of training and qualifications for estate agents, and for people who do estate agency work such as lettings and direct sales. We also want to ensure that firms have adequate professional indemnity insurance and, where appropriate, insurance to protect clients' money. Any order made under the new clause would need the approval of the House under the affirmative procedure, and the Secretary of State would be required to consult before making any such order.
	We touched on these matters in Committee, but in no great depth. Our debate focused on the arguments made by  Which?, the various anonymous surveys that it carried out, and its investigations into issues such as offers, valuations and contracts. Those arguments were well set out earlier by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and the response to the magazine's inquiries showed that British people do not trust the estate agent industry or believe that they are treated in a way that is always responsible, competent or honest. The fact that the profession is not respected is very significant, and we believe that people's concerns should be heard and understood.
	When we raise the issue of requiring proper training and qualifications, we are always told that that would place an undue burden on the industry and act as a restraint on people entering the profession. However, new clause 2 is supported by  Which?, the National Association of Estate Agents, and by Halifax estate agents. The two chartered surveyors in the House will be interested to hear that the new clause's principle and intention are supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, although it would prefer the provision to be included on the face of the Bill rather than introduced as a statutory instrument.
	The argument that the new clause would be onerous and act as a barrier to entry is fallacious. It has been pointed out that good estate agents want a requirement for qualification and training, and that it is those who are not competent who run away from the proposal. In addition, it takes only about six months to meet the present NAEA qualifications: that is hardly a barrier to entry, and the exam is being adapted so that people can do it online, at their own convenience.
	People do not have to give up jobs to enrol in a complex school programme. There is a great deal of flexibility, and the NAEA qualification can be provided in an efficient way that fits with people's general diaries and schedules.
	Interestingly enough, the pass rate for the NAEA qualification is about 62 per cent., and the people who want to do lettings do rather worse than that. That means that something like 40 per cent. of the people taking the examwhich is equivalent to national vocational qualification level 3do not pass and have to do further study to achieve the qualification. That makes it clear that many people go into the estate agency business who simply are not competent. The exam structure focuses on basic law, building construction techniques and valuation techniques. How can a person who does not have mastery of those three disciplines advise people on what is probably the most important investment that they will make in their lives?
	The sums of money are very large, and people are bound to lack competence of their own because they are likely to buy a house only once, twice or three times in their lives. It is not surprising, therefore, that they look to estate agents for competence, and new clause 2 would make minimum standards and qualifications a requirement.
	It has been claimed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, that rogues are not stopped by requiring them to take exams, but exams can prevent incompetence. I do not oppose the redress scheme, because rogues in the industry must be dealt with, but we also have to tackle incompetence. Prevention is better than either cure or punishment in that respect, and we should ensure that the industry meets the standards that the public expect. We would not dream of allowing an unqualified solicitor to draft the language of a contract, or of hiring an unqualified surveyor when we are buying a house. It is beyond belief that anyone would want to use an incompetent estate agent.
	I advise the House that we did not discuss these matters in depth in Committee, and that we had no opportunity to divide on them. If the Minister makes a satisfactory response, I shall not press new clause 2 to a Division. However, if the Government do not accept the essence of the proposal, I shall press the proposal to a vote.

Tom Clarke: If I may say so, I think that the hon. Lady made an excellent contribution to the Committee, but I am puzzled by her assertion that we did not have an opportunity to divide on these matters. If she had wanted a Division in Committee, she could have had one. However, she has moved the debate on today, and seems to be holding the Minister to ransom. Why did she not press the proposals to a Division in Committee?

Susan Kramer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. If he remembers, there were many points at issue that day and we were trying to cover a vast amount of ground. It seemed to us that we might get some movement on the issue without having to force the matter to a Division. That did not happen, and it would be good for the House to have an opportunity to make its opinions clear on an issue that is well understood by the public and about which the public care. Members of the House, certainly of my party, would like to have the opportunity to express themselves on the issue, but that decision is in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Stephen Timms: I begin by expressing thanks to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his words of welcome and by welcoming him to this brief. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) for her welcome and express good wishes to her in her new responsibilities. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) said about the contribution that she has made to debates on the Bill in recent months.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold explained what new clause 1 would do. I must say to him that it would give the Government a very wide power to amend a central concept that underpins the Estate Agents Act 1979. He said in defence of the new clause that it might never be brought into effect, but it would not be sensible for the House to agree a measure if it did not want it to be enacted. The House would need to be comfortable that this was a reasonable measure before it agreed to its introduction. It would represent a large and, I suggest, ill-advised addition to the regulatory burden. There would be little restriction on how the power could be used. All sorts of activities could be brought within the definition of estate agency work if the Government of the day were so minded, albeit with the affirmative parliamentary procedure as a check.
	If there were a power to amend the section 1 definition, we would have to consider the implications for other pieces of legislation that rely on that definition such as the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. They all refer back to that definition.
	The 1979 Act was intended only to apply to those engaged in estate agency work. The controls imposed by the Act would not all be appropriate to impose on the other categories of commercial organisations that he suggestedlettings agents, property developers or other property professionals. We would also have to rewrite the rest of the 1979 Act to make it compatible with a new definition. For example, if lettings work were included in the definition of estate agency work, as the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested, we would probably also have to amend the definition of an interest in land. And if such a power were to be added, we would in effect have the ability to rewrite large chunks of the Act via secondary legislation. That on its own should give hon. Members pause for thought.
	Let me comment on the three categories to which the hon. Member for Cotswold drew attention. He rather unkindly said that the Government were carrying out some reviews as an alternative to action. I suggest to him and to the House that it is right to proceed on the basis of careful thought. The Office of Fair Trading is conducting a market study of the house building industry. The study will allow the OFT to consider the potential competition and consumer concerns in the market and will focus in particular on the delivery of housing and customer satisfaction. It will follow on from Kate Barker's review of housing supply, which recommended that the house building industry should demonstrate increased levels of customer satisfaction. She also recommended that if progress was not satisfactory, the OFT should conduct a wide review of whether the market was working well for consumers. That study is now under way and is expected to report by the summer of next year. It is right to await the outcome of that work before we decide whether to take legislative action.
	We have also committed to undertake a wider property review to examine regulations and redress across a range of sectors, including lettings and whether further steps are needed. That review will be led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Officials are drawing up the terms of reference for that work and looking at the timing, but it is expected to start in the summer.

Ben Wallace: In Committee, the Minister's predecessor alluded to the property review. It is not clear whether the property review will include park homes and the plots that they sit on. Currently, property does not include such facilities, so they are not protected, because estate agency applies to property. Will that be looked at in the review? If the Minister wants more information, I am happy to write to him.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to write to me. As I say, officials are drawing up the terms of reference for that work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution to reflections on that, I will make sure that his letter is taken into account.
	As for internet-based estate agency, the OFT issued guidance in September 2005 on the types of activity carried out by internet property retailers that are likely to lead to their falling within the definition of estate agency work under the 1979 Act. Where activities over the net fall within the meaning of estate agency work under the 1979 Act, internet property retailers will be required to be members of redress schemes.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) explained in Committee the reasons why we have not sought to change the definition of estate agency in this Bill. We have already taken action to deal with some of the problems in the lettings sector. The tenancy deposit scheme, which was introduced in April, has improved the rights of tenants by ensuring that deposits cannot be withheld unfairly. The Housing Act 2004 gave new rights to vulnerable tenants by requiring landlords who manage houses of multiple occupation to be licensed. We have committed to looking closely at the lettings sector as part of the wider property review.
	We need to look carefully at the evidence, make sure that we have the evidence that we need and then consider recommendations from the reviews that have been put in train before deciding what next steps are necessary. It is also important that major changes of the kind envisaged in the new clause are made by Parliament through primary legislation rather than the broad power proposed in new clause 1.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is dealing with the matter in a reasonable way, and much of what he said I expected him to say. New clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, contains two important aspects that we have not yet discussed. It is relevant to discuss it now. One is the issue of professional indemnity for estate agents. If they do not have professional indemnity, one must rely solely on the redress scheme. The Government ought to think about that.
	On Second Reading in the other place, a great deal of discussion was had on the Farepak debacle and the whole issue of holding other people's money. There will be a number of activities in which estate agents hold people's money. It will not be long before we have a scandalous case of a rogue estate agent holding a client's money and disappearing with it. I wonder whether the Government could give some thought to that.

Stephen Timms: Let me turn to new clause 2; I have not yet started to address the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I am happy now to do so. I know that there was a substantial debate on the issue in Committee.
	We have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we want to raise standards in estate agency. By requiring membership of redress schemes for all estate agents, this Bill gives estate agents the incentive to raise their own standards to avoid being investigated by an ombudsman. Businesses will be able to judge for themselves what training is needed to ensure that staff deliver a good service. If they do not make it clear to staff that best practice standards are expected and train staff accordingly, they will know that they are likely to face costly payouts in due course. That is a pretty effective way of concentrating the minds of those involved.
	In response to the case that the hon. Lady presented to the House, it would be a mistake to force all estate agents to belong to an industry body and then give that body, or bodies, free rein to decide the standards of conduct estate agents should adhere to and the training they require. The hon. Lady pointed out that her proposal has the support of the National Association of Estate Agents, which does not surprise me. The NAEA is a reputable organisation and does tremendous work promoting higher standards in the industry, but it is not a regulator. It would be unwise and confusing to give it a regulatory function in addition to the role it already fulfils.

Susan Kramer: The Minister will know from reading the new clause that it includes no mention of that organisation. I gave the NAEA as an example of an organisation that provides a qualification, which is not onerous but is recognised. It demonstrates the fact that many people who go on to become estate agents cannot reach that standard and thus cannot meet the test of competence. That is today's world.

Stephen Timms: If the hon. Lady does not have in mind an industry body for the performance of that role, which body would it be? The debate in Committee focused on the idea that it should be an industry body, so as an important rejoinder I underline the dangers attached to the route she suggests.
	I accept that the discussion would be slightly different if another kind of body was involved, but the approach in the Bill is right. It is based on the work of the Office of Fair Trading. The Bill gives force to recommendations based on evidence provided by the OFT, whose study showed that the best incentive for raising standards is the threat of being taken before a redress scheme. I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold; the real danger is from rogue estate agents whose problem is not competence but honesty. They know exactly what the rules are but they also know how to get round them. Handing over control to an industry body would simply restrict entry to the profession with no guarantee of getting rid of the rogues, as the hon. Gentleman said. The clear advice from the OFT was that the cost of putting up barriers to entry, which would also be likely to raise prices for consumers, would outweigh the benefits of that approach.
	We are confident that requiring estate agents to belong to approved redress schemes will improve standards in the industry. We are also strengthening the enforcement powers in the Estate Agents Act 1979 so that the Bill ensures that breaches of statutory undertakings and enforcement orders under the Enterprise Act 2002, as well as the commission of specified criminal offences, can result in an investigation of an estate agent's fitness to practise, which will enable enforcers to deal more effectively with agents who rip off their customers, and take them out of the market.
	New clause 2 highlights issues about professional indemnity insurance and the handling of customers' funds, and I shall comment on both. Estate agents would be unwise to trade without a minimum level of professional indemnity insurance, which is a condition of membership of the National Association of Estate Agents. It is also a condition of membership of the existing voluntary redress schemes for estate agents; for example, the ombudsman scheme for estate agents requires firms to have minimum cover of 100,000 and the surveyor ombudsman scheme requires members to have cover of at least 250,000. The Bill will require estate agents to belong to such schemes.

Susan Kramer: Will the Minister clarify what may have been my misreading of the Bill? Does it say anywhere in the measure that a requirement of joining a redress scheme is adequate indemnity insurance and insurance protection for clients' money? Did I miss that?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Lady knows the answer. No, she did not miss it. There is no mandatory requirement in the Bill, because if the level were set too high it could operate as a barrier to market entry. I emphasise again the importance of not erecting unnecessary barriers as the impact would be to raise prices for consumers, which would be unhelpful. Nevertheless, such a requirement is a feature of the two schemes I mentioned.

Susan Kramer: A few moments ago, the Minister said he thought it would be unwise for a company to practise without such insurance. Is he comfortable with an environment in which companies are supported in their continued existence whenin his viewtheir practice is unwise? We need an answer to that important question for the industry.

Stephen Timms: I am comfortable that the market will be able to work effectively in the framework we are implementing and that it will be able to deliver services that meet the needs of customers. The balance we have struck in the Bill is the right one.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to clients' cash, which is mentioned in the new clause, too. However, it is often solicitors rather than estate agents who handle clients' money when they are buying or selling a property. Estate agents who handle money have to comply with the requirements of the 1979 Act and with the Estate Agents (Accounts) Regulations 1981. Non-compliance is an offence that can lead to prosecution in a magistrates court. Thanks to the Bill, it would be open to the consumer to seek redress for any problems they experienced with an estate agent who was handling their money, so a legislative requirement is not needed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The debate has raised two major difficulties with the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). The first, which has already been mentioned, is the question of who will carry out the training. We have already seen the difficulties that arose when the Government tried to get their scheme for home inspectors off the ground, so the training would probably be left to one of the existing bodies. The second real difficulty, which has not been covered in the debate, relates to the training that would be required. As chartered surveyors, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) and I know that it takes four years to train for that profession, and part of the training is a year's experience actually doing the job. The hon. Lady's proposal for a six-month training course would not include any training on the job, which is one of the best ways of learning how to become an estate agent.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman speaks from extensive experience and I am happy to draw attention to his expertise and that of his four chartered surveyor colleagues in the House.
	I hope that my reply offered some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I thank all those who contributed to the debate. The Government remain of the view that ensuring that all estate agents belong to a redress scheme, alongside tightening up the available enforcement powers, is the right approach. On that basis, I hope Members will feel able to withdraw the proposal, but if not, I urge my hon. Friends and others to vote against it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It looks as though the Government are not acceding to my new clause. I therefore ask to put it to the vote.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 126, Noes 242.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	  
	Standards of competence

'(1) Section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) (standards of competence) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute
	(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations made by statutory instrument designate any body of persons as an approved body to which people engaged in estate agency work, including both the sale and lettings of residential property, must belong.
	(2) The approved bodies must make membership conditional on signing up to rules and codes of conduct, which will
	(a) set minimum standards of training and qualifications required, and
	(b) ensure that firms have adequate professional indemnity insurance and, as appropriate, clients money protection insurance.
	(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult
	(a) organisations representing the interests of consumers,
	(b) other persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons who have an interest in the matter.'. [Susan Kramer.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 240.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 22
	  
	voluntary activities

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 12, line 38, at end insert
	'( ) If the Secretary of State gives such consent, the Secretary of State must publish a notice stating that consent has been given and specifying the reasons for giving consent.'
	The amendment relates to the National Consumer Council's voluntary activities functions in this part of the Bill. Clause 22 provides for the new council to acquire an interest in a company, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. In Committee, an amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) which would have provided that the Secretary of State should publish the reasons for any approval given to a request by the new NCC to acquire an interest in a body corporate.
	We accepted the amendment in principle, as that is entirely in line with the Government's commitment to transparency and openness in their dealings with the new council, and we committed to table an amendment along those lines. This amendment honours that commitment. It ensures that any consent given by the Secretary of State to a proposal by the new council to acquire an interest in a company, and the reasons for that decision, are publicly available and open to public scrutiny. I am glad to commend the amendment to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for accepting the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) put across in Committee and for tabling the Government amendment, which incorporates what was discussed there. The new NCC must be independent, and it was important to seek from the Government an assurance that there are satisfactory management and audit oversight provisions to ensure that public money is well spent. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. The power in the original clause was wide, and there was concern over the lack of a specific mechanism to prevent the NCC from incurring significant losses on a particular business venture. We have seen that with certain educational institutions that go out into business ventures abroad. Specifically, the amendment ensures that the reasons behind any consent given by the Secretary of State will be in the public domain, thus ensuring accountability and transparency. Again, I thank the Minister for tabling it.
	 Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29
	  
	Disclosure of information

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 16, line 43, leave out subsection (4).
	The CBI has significant concerns relating to the protection of commercially sensitive information under the Bill. Under clause 24, the NCC is given wide-ranging powers to obtain information from a number of bodies, including the Office of Fair Trading and various sectoral regulators, as well as businesses. The only limitation seems to be that the information must be required for the purposes of exercising the council's functions. I am sure that the House can begin to see that the purpose of the amendment is to protect sensitive commercial information that has been demanded from a company under the powers in the Bill from reaching the public domain and thus, perhaps, some commercial competitors.
	The provisions in the Bill on disclosure of such information are contained in clause 29 and are complex. They are linked to part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002, which includes clear safeguards against the release of consumer and competition information which has been provided to public authorities. Such safeguards were seen as essential in building business support for, and confidence in, the new enforcement regime that was established under 2002 Act. That legislation struck a careful balance between the need for enforcement authorities to seek and obtain sensitive information in the effective discharge of their functions while protecting commercial information from disclosure except under specific and deliberately narrow gateways.
	The council will need to have regard to the considerations in section 244 of the 2002 Act before disclosure. Those include the need to exclude from disclosure, as far as is practicable, commercial information which the authority thinks might significantly harm the company's legitimate business interests. However, the underlying presumption against disclosure under part 9 will not, by virtue of clause 29(4), apply to the NCC. We do not understand the justification for not applying that presumption, which is deemed necessary to prevent the release of business information by public authorities, to the council. There is a risk that commercially sensitive information could find its way into the public domain and thus to competitors. The amendment would ensure that part 9 safeguards applied to the new NCC.

Stephen Timms: The amendment would remove a necessary provision and I will therefore resist it. It is necessary for technical reasons and I hope that I can at least outline them, as I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has about clause 29(4).
	Clause 29 deals with the disclosure of information by the new NCC. The new council has important functions, which are designed to serve the interests of consumers, includingunder clauses 10 and 19the provision of information. It is important that we achieve a balance between the new council being able to discharge its statutory functions and ensuring that it respects the confidentiality of the information that it has obtained.
	In creating the new council, we need to ensure that it can deal with not only the issues that span consumer interests generally, but the specific sectoral issues in the gas, electricity, and postal services markets. The current National Consumer Council does not exercise statutory functions and is therefore not subject to the general information disclosure provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002. Energywatch and Postwatch are subject to the specific information disclosure regimes in the Utilities Act 2000 and the Postal Services Act 2000 respectively, which apply to those bodies and to the regulators.
	In bringing together the statutory consumer bodies in the energy and postal services sectorsand in providing for the possible inclusion of the consumer body for water too, following consultation next yearwe have set out a single information disclosure regime for the new council instead of subjecting it to separate information regimes, depending on the source of the information. That would have resulted in complex and perhaps even unworkable provisions.
	The existing gateways in the Enterprise Act 2002 provide for disclosure of information by public bodies in the exercise of their functions and to facilitate the exercise of functions by another public body. However, the new council has several functions of publishing reports or information, and they are listed in clause 29(4). We concluded that, when the function was to publish information, the disclosure involved could not be said to
	facilitate the exercise of the function.
	The publication or disclosure was itself the function and so did not fit the structure of the existing part 9 of the 2002 Act.
	Consequently, the regime in part 9 did not deal effectively with protecting confidential information in such cases. Subsections (5) and (6) were therefore inserted in clause 29 to provide protection. They require the council to consult the individual or business to which the information relates and to have regard to the principles in section 244 of the 2002 Act, which apply to disclosure under part 9. Those are: the public interest, the necessity for disclosure, and the need to exclude from disclosure information which might significantly harm the individual or business to which it relates.
	Those provisions draw on the existing models in the gas, electricity and postal services sectors. For example, section 19 of the Utilities Act 2000 applies to publication of information by Energywatch In each case, the general disclosure regime in the legislation is disapplied and special provision is made for the function of publication.
	So, to give protection to business and personal information, we have included subsections (5) and (6) in clause 29, and made it clear in clause 29(4) that the prohibition on disclosure in part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002 does not apply. The result is proper safeguards, including consultation with individuals or businesses to which the information relates, before disclosure can be made in exercising the council's functions under which information may be published.
	I hope that that information will assist the hon. Member for Cotswold. I recognise that it was rather a technical explanation, and I apologise for that, but I can give him an assurance that the end result will be a set of provisions that broadly follow the existing arrangements while ensuring that there is a single disclosure regime for the new council instead of multiple regimes. I hope that, given that reassurance, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, although I recognise the validity of the concerns that he has raised.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. This is a technical matter, as he says, and the official Opposition do not dispute the need for one disclosure regime for the various bodies brought together in the Bill. That is entirely understandable. What is not understandable, however, is why the careful balance established in section 244 of the Enterprise Act 2002, relating to disclosure by public bodies, has been moved in this way. There is an important balance to be struck in regard to what information is disclosed by public bodies that obtain sensitive information. We want to question carefully why that balancewhich has been altered by the Bill to make it easier for the public bodies covered by the Bill to disclose that informationhas been disturbed.

Stephen Timms: It is for technical reasons. Part 9 of the Enterprise Act cannot merely be applied here. Part 9 works when information is provided by a body in pursuit of its functions, but legally that does not work when the body in questionin this case, the new councilhas a specific function to provide information. That is the rather technical distinction. That is why there are separate provisions in clause 29(5) and (6), which provide safeguards in the specific circumstances, and in the context, of the new council's functions. I believe that those safeguards will be effective, and that they will deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's explanation, but this is a highly technical matter. Perhaps we need to leave it for now, rather than pressing the matter to a Division, but with the reservation that we might well want to revisit it on another occasion, perhaps in the course of a wider debate relating to the disclosure of information by public bodies.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43
	  
	Standards for handling complaints

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 26, line 33, at end insert
	'(10) When making regulations under this section the regulator must have regard to
	(a) the needs of both domestic and non-domestic consumers; and
	(b) such principles as
	(i) in the opinion of the regulator constitute generally accepted principles of best practice in relation to handling of consumer complaints, and
	(ii) it is reasonable to regard as applicable to these regulations.'.
	The amendment has been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). We have bundled two issues into this amendment: the application of the regulations to small enterprises, and the principle of best practice in the handling of complaints. Paragraph (a) is relevant to small businesses. Although it is clear that the general definition of consumer in clause 3 includes businessesor non-domestic consumers, which could include small voluntary groups, and so onthere is still a gap in clause 43. Subsections (2) and (3) say that complaint-handling standards can be restricted so that they do not cover all relevant customers. In other words, Ofgem, or whoever, could say that these regulations apply only to natural persons. The amendment seeks to require their interests to be considered without reopening the wider business/consumer debate.
	The Minister might say that this argument is irrelevant because clause 44 includes requirements to consult, but that is not quite right. The requirement to consult applies only to those likely to be affected by the new regulations. If the complaint-handling standards apply only to private individuals, one would have to consult people representing those consumersthe energy supply companies and so onbut one would not necessarily have to consult small businesses, because they would arguably not be affected by the regulations.
	The standard defence at this point is that businesses do not necessarily need protection as consumers. Indeed, consumers often need protecting from businesses. However, that argument is flawed. Why should a village shop or a charity have to be an expert in all the services that they consume? Ed Wilson of Energywatch makes the point that redress is available for small businesses and other non-domestic consumers in telecoms but not in energy. The Bill provides an opportunity to improve the situation for those consumers.
	On a related point that goes a little beyond the amendment's scope, it seems from clause 49(3)(b) that business or other non-domestic consumers will have access to redress schemes. Lord Truscott confirmed that in the Grand Committee in the Lords on 9 January. He also said that business suppliers will not have to join redress schemes. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that and the suggestion that the new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is minded to include businesses with 10 employees or fewer within the redress provisions. Approximately 96 per cent. of small businesses would be covered by that and it would be a welcome step. It does not appear to require any change to the text. Is it the Government's intention to include other non-domestic consumers such as those that I outlined?
	On complaint-handling standards, the other part of the amendment would ensure that the regulations were governed by principles of best practice, the language used in clause 49 for redress schemes. That matters because clause 49(1) was toughened up to say that the regulator must have regard to those, in the face of objections from Ofgem. It therefore matters that the regulations are as good and effective as they can possibly be; otherwise we might end up with weak standards. We would argue that it is even more important to get best practice standards for complaint handling than it is for redress schemes as we are relying on the energy companies to fill the gap left by the abolition of Energywatch and so on.
	Part of the reason for the difference is the series of concessions from the Government during the course of proceedings on the Bill. Those were very welcome. The language on redress schemes in clause 49 was upgraded from good to best practice in the Grand Committee in the Lords, and in Committee in the Commons the Government upgraded the requirements for the regulator to prescribe standards for complaint handling from a may to a must. In a speech that the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), made to the National Consumer Council on 21 May, he said that he would
	not settle until we have a consumer regime which is the bestnot just amongst the best.
	It is difficult to square that with not wanting best practice to be the standard for complaint handling. I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Stephen Timms: I listened to the hon. Lady's case with interest, but the procedures that a regulator needs to follow in making regulations prescribing the standards to be met for complaint handling by regulated service providers, as set out in clause 44, are sufficiently robust. There is a requirement on a regulator to consult widely by conducting research to obtain and then take into consideration the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and publicising the proposals in full detail to bring them to the attention of those likely to be affected, which is to a rather wider audience. In addition, the Bill provides that the regulations to be made are to be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. Those requirements will mean that full and proper consideration will be given to proposed standards before a final decision is made by a regulator. The consultation requirement in the clause will enable all interested parties to contribute their ideas and advice on the complaint-handling standards which should be adopted, including any views on where best practice lies. It will be an open process, rather than the more restricted one about which the hon. Lady, understandably, expressed concern.
	The prescribed standards will relate to the handling of complaints that are made to the regulated service providers by consumers of their services. The Bill sets out in clause 42(1) the regulated gas, electricity and postal services providers that will be subject to the new complaint-handling standards.
	As for which users and customers will be covered by the standards, that is at the discretion of the regulator and can include small businesses if the regulator determines that it is appropriate that they should come within the scope. On the question of the criteria for approval of redress schemes as opposed to complaint-handling schemes, the processes are quite different. For redress schemes, it is the regulated service providers that can establish schemes and seek the approval of the regulator. Key criteria for approval are set out in clause 49, where the regulator is obliged to have regard to generally accepted principles of best practice.
	The regulator is not obliged to consult on the approval criteria for the redress schemes, but is so obliged for the schemes on complaint handling. For complaint handling, it is the regulator who takes the initiative. Clause 44 obliges the regulator to consult, so there are different processes. That is the reason for the different approach that we have taken.
	I hope that that explanation has provided some reassurances to the hon. Lady and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If not, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I am somewhat reassured, particularly following his comments on the process of consultation and on the coverage in respect of small businesses. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44
	  
	Requirements for making regulations under section 43

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 27, line 10, at end insert
	'( ) The requirements of subsection (1) may be satisfied by action taken before the commencement of this section or the passing of this Act.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 3.

Stephen Timms: These amendments relate to clauses 44 and 47, and the new redress and complaint-handling provisions to be introduced in the energy and postal services sectors, and potentially in the water sector after consultation in 2008. Those elements of the new framework for consumer representation and redress are important to the new arrangements in the Bill. A direct consequence of those new provisions is that regulated providers in the energy and postal services sectors, and potentially water, will be required to take full and proper responsibility for handling complaints from consumers of their services.
	As an incentive for industry to take complaint-handling seriouslywe have just had a short debate about the importance of those processesthe Bill places a requirement on the regulators to make regulations prescribing standards for complaint handling which will be binding on regulated providers in those sectors. Where a regulated service provider has not been able to resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of the consumer, the availability of redress schemes will ensure that consumers will benefit from the certainty of resolution of a complaint, and the award of compensation where appropriate.
	We are working closely with representatives of the key organisations concerned to ensure that we achieve a smooth transition to the new framework which maximises benefits to consumers, and minimises the uncertainty for staff in the existing organisations. We expect that the new sectoral redress schemes will be established by industry and approved by the relevant regulators. In parallel, regulators will also be considering how to introduce the new standards for complaint handling.
	We are discussing with industry and industry representatives how to make the transition to the new arrangements. The timetable for delivering the different aspects of the new framework will be challenging, and work on the detailed aspects of that must start immediately.
	The intention behind the amendments is straightforward: to clarify the status of actions such as consultations and other procedural steps and to provide that where they are carried out before Royal Assent and commencement they nevertheless satisfy the requirements of the Bill as set out in clauses 44(1) and 47(4). There are time constraints, and the amendments will help us to make progress before Royal Assent and commencement, and provide an assurance that such actions will satisfy the obligations contained in the Bill. They will save time later in the process, and enable us to introduce measures swiftly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Minister said, this is a new amendment that addresses clause 44, which was also amended in Committee. The clause requires that all energy and postal suppliers operate an approved complaint-handling scheme. Subsection (1) places a number of requirements on regulators, such as those to undertake appropriate research and to consult
	a representative sample of persons likely to be affected.
	Regulators must comply with the requirements before making regulations to prescribe complaint-handling procedures under clause 43.
	We support the requirement to ensure that effective complaint-handling procedures are in place and recognise that there is a need to consult. However, it is surprising that the Government have only now realised that such an amendment is necessary. The Government's intention of introducing the new arrangements within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent might be too ambitiousthe Minister said in moving the amendment that the time scale is challenging. Can he reassure us further that the Government will be able to address matters in time for Royal Assent, which I assume will be in a year's time?
	Government amendment No. 3 is also a new amendment. It relates to clause 47 provisions on the membership of the redress scheme. The clause ensures that all suppliers are members of an approved redress scheme. The redress scheme provisions in subsection (4) place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before making an order to require that regulated providers in the energy and postal service sectors belong to a redress scheme.
	We support the requirement to ensure that all providers are members of an approved redress scheme and recognise that there is a need to consult. However, we are again surprised that the Government have only now realised that it is necessary to introduce such an amendment. I appreciate that the Minister, like me, was not present during earlier proceedings, but there is a lack of joined-up government and forward thinking. I press the Minister to say whether the timetable to achieve the provisions contained in the two amendments is achievable.

Stephen Timms: The amendments are an example of forward thinking, rather than of the absence of forward thinking. Where it is our intention to introduce the new arrangements within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we want to maximise the benefits to consumers and minimise uncertainty for staff in the existing organisations. Both of those considerations suggest that it is right to meet the challenging timetable that we have set, and I think that we can do that.
	Because of the time constraints on the implementation timetable, it would be helpful for us and the regulators to be able to consult before Royal Assent. That is why we have tabled these amendments. To do so is a prudent step. We do not want to jeopardise the achievement of this challenging timetable. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, from the point of view of consumers but also of staff, it is helpful not to waste time on this issue. The amendments will help us to resolve it quickly, and I hope that he feels able to support them on that basis.
	 Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47
	  
	Membership of redress scheme

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 28, line 8, at end insert
	'( ) The requirements of subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation undertaken before the commencement of this section or the passing of this Act.'. [Mr. Timms.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Having come to the Bill rather late in its lifelike the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer)I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), for their skilful and assiduous handling of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Let me also thank all those other Membersincluding my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who is in his placewho served on the Public Bill Committee.
	We are committed to a robust and effective consumer regime, and this Bill is one of a series of measures to create confident and empowered consumers. By next year, the Consumer Credit Act 2006, the unfair commercial practices directive and this Bill will all be in force, thereby improving the lives of consumers. Major stakeholders and consumer groups have broadly welcomed the Bill, and the broad consensus on its major elements has been reflected in the debates in this House. However, the Bill has also been improved by amendments made here, and I want to thank all those who took part for the constructive debate on these measures.
	Taking the clauses in reverse order, the Bill contains an important power to extend cooling-off and cancellation rights to solicited sales visits. We hope to consult on the revised regulations governing doorstep selling later this year. They will make the law simpler and clearer for consumers and businesses alike. I particularly look forward to the extra protection that will be given to vulnerable consumers.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he was in full flow. On Report, I asked whether the provisions dealing with so-called solicited calls would cover estate agents, and whether there would be a cooling-off period in that regard. I should be grateful if the Minister answered that question at some point in his speech.

Stephen Timms: I am happy to do so, and I apologise for omitting to do so when I replied in the earlier debate. The new regulations will apply to all contracts for goods and services entered into at home, with some exceptions. We will consult this year on the proposals, and without wishing to pre-empt the results, I would expect the new cancellation rights to apply to contracts with estate agents, if they are entered into at the consumer's home in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
	The Bill also fulfils the Government's commitment to require estate agents to belong to a redress scheme, and it strengthens the regulation of estate agents in a number of respects. For example, they will be required to keep adequate records of their dealings with a client for a period of six years. The Bill will bring about the creation of the new national consumer council, which will be a strong and powerful advocate for consumers across all sectors. The new body will be able to represent energy and postal services consumers even more effectively than the existing arrangements. We will consult next year on whether the water sector should be brought within the fold.
	For the first time, the Bill introduces compulsory redress schemes in the energy and postal services markets. On the consumer voice part of the Bill, let me update the House on a number of significant developments. First, I would like to make an announcement about the chair of the new National Consumer Council, which is an important position. The chair will require considerable skill to lead the new body during the transition from the framework in this Bill to the realisation of a stronger, more effective advocate for the consumer interest. I am very pleased to announce that Lord Whitty will chair the new National Consumer Council once it is established. As hon. Members will know, he leads the existing council, and so will provide important experience and continuity during the transitional period.
	Secondly, I can inform the House that the new National Consumer Council will be permitted to establish its central office in London, with its national offices in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast. I gave approval to the London location as one of my last acts as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in recognition of the need to retain the expertise of the staff in the existing organisations, all of which are based in London. A London location will also enable key staff to be located close to the council's stakeholders. In determining its final structure, the new council will be required to take into account the recommendations of the Lyons review and the Government's objective of locating jobs outside the south-east when possible.
	Thirdly, my Department is today launching a consultation on the scope of the redress schemes proposed to be established in the energy and postal services sectors as a result of the measures in the Bill. The consultation invites views about whether all regulated providers in the gas, electricity and postal services sectors should be required to become members of a redress scheme; whether domestic consumers andto pick up the point made on Report by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt)the smallest businesses are the right groups of consumers to have access to the schemes; and whether the schemes should handle all types of complaints from those consumers. Those developments set us well on the way to creating the new National Consumer Council, and I am glad to be able to make these announcements just as the Bill completes its passage through this House.
	In conclusion, the Government believe that the measures in the Bill will make a real difference to millions of consumers across the UK. We want consumers to be effectively represented; to be empowered with the right information to get the right deal; and to have access to redress when things go wrong. We also want rogues and villains to be removed from the market. We believe that the measures in this Bill will be effective in achieving those goals, and so I commend the Bill to the House.

Tom Clarke: I had the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee, which did a very good job. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his new duties. He has done an excellent job in every ministerial post that he has had and I know that he will add to his new role responsibilities for inter-faith matters, on which I am sure he will also do a fine job.
	I was influenced to become a member of the Committee because of the interest that I had expressed in the House, not least on Second Reading, on what I thought was happening in the energy industry. I felt then and still feel that consumers are entitled to a much louder voice than hitherto. I accept that now that the Bill has been in Committee and on Report consumers can be assured that it will go a long way towards allowing their views to be expressed, their concerns articulated and oftenfrankly speakingtheir anger to be expressed as well.
	I had in mind on Second Reading what I regarded as the disgraceful behaviour of the energy companies, especially the gas and electricity ones, who steadfastly refused to pass on to consumers, especially vulnerable consumers, the reductions in wholesale prices, even though increases were passed on with little delay. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) made the point several times in Committee that it was not surprising that the problems facing vulnerable consumers should be so much on our minds, and our aim has always been to ensure that complaints receive an urgent and positive response. In that regard, I pay special tribute to Energywatch, which has been doing an outstanding job. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that its contribution and expertise will be copied by the new NCC.
	Some people face remarkable difficulties with fuel poverty. Energywatch was able to deal with 86 per cent. of the complaints that it received in 35 days, whereas the department of the energy supply ombudsman took the view that 95 per cent. of complaints did not come under his terms of reference. We want complaints to be dealt with and registered promptly, and responses to them must recognise the needs of those impoverished and vulnerable people who are very much in our minds.
	In Committee, I expressed my doubts as to whether suppliers should hold information arising from complaints, and I noted that the expected accountability was not in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) used to be the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs, and he did a fine job of piloting the Bill through the Committee. He wrote to me about these matters, as follows:
	I explained during the debate that I believe that the provision you soughtthe desirability of which does not appear to be disputed on any sideis already included in the Bill as currently drafted. Schedule 5 inserts new sections into each of the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, and the Postal Services Act 2000. These require OFGEM and Postcomm respectively to collect data regarding compliance with the complaint handling standards prescribed under clause 43 of the Bill.
	I welcome that clarification, which I think will satisfy those who worried that the Bill placed more emphasis on redress than on the handling of complaints.
	This is an extremely important Bill. Some of my constituents live in high flats and believe that, in very cold winters, they have not been getting the heating that they are entitled to expect. They felt that their complaints were not being taken seriously and that most energy companies were demonstrating a greed that they found unacceptable. They very much welcome the accountability and transparency that the Bill will bring to these matters.
	I am not the only Lanarkshire MP to be critical of the approach adopted by the energy companies, although they have made some progress since debates began on the Bill. I hope that others who have fought on these matters will share my belief that the message that the Bill sends out is that Parliament accepts that it has responsibilities to consumers. They are responsibilities that we intend to discharge. We have set in the Bill a mechanism by which we can oversee exactly what is taking place. It will make it as easy as possible to gain access to the people who can deal with complaints. In that spirit, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on introducing the Bill and wish them all the success that my constituents would expect.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is universally agreed in the House that what we want in the United Kingdom is the best consumer protection in the world. The Bill goes some way towards that, although there are areas in which we would have liked the Government to go further. I shall deal with those later in my speech.
	We believe in strong consumer choice and freedom. We believe that information should be accessible so that people can exercise that choice. Conservatives have supported the broad thrust of the Bill, and we welcome this move by the Government. To that end, we have scrutinised the Bill in a positive and constructive way, as have the Liberal Democrats. We tabled more than 45 amendments in the Public Bill Committee alone. The Government have either accepted them or introduced amendments of their own. They introduced 11 as a direct result of that scrutiny.
	We are pleased by the bipartisan nature of the Government's conduct of this part of the business. Conservative amendments have improved the Bill both in the Commons and in another place. Our emphasis was on enhancing the accountability of the new National Consumer Council. That has included ensuring that the Minister makes public the reasons behind any approval that the Government give to the NCC to acquire a corporate body.
	We welcome the announcement that the Minister made in his Third Reading speech of the new chair of the NCC, Lord Whitty. He has come a long way since he was general secretary of the Labour party, and he now has a huge challenge on his hands. We wish him well because we want to make the provisions in the Bill work, especially the combining of all the functions of the consumer council.
	I welcome the fact that the NCC will have offices in three parts of the United KingdomLondon, Cardiff and Belfast. I just hope that the good citizens of Scotland will not feel left out. I was delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and not forgetting the good citizens of Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), but I am surprised that he did not refer to the fact that none of the offices was in Scotland. I hope that his constituents will not feel left out.
	We have helped consumers by ensuring that best practice in complaints handling is followed by all energy companies. We have ensured that the new NCC better reflects the successful operation and follows the best practice of the existing council. However, on the question of estate agents and supporting consumers, we feel that the Government have been half-hearted in their approach. I know that we had a bit of banter across the Dispatch Box on Report, but the opportunity to look at the regulation and operation of estate agents has been missed. Some of the most vulnerable in our society who get involved only in the letting side of the residential market will feel left out. I am sure that that is a matter that this Government or a Government of a different colour will have to deal with in the future. So the Bill has missed an opportunity in that respect.
	I welcome what the Minister said todaythat those functions laid down in the Estate Agents Act 1979 will be extended to cover activities on the web and direct sales by developers. If those activities were covered by the definition laid down in the 1979 Act, they would be covered by the redress scheme and so on in the Bill. It is a lacuna in the Bill that it does not include the lettings market, especially as it is now becoming such a big sector of the residential market.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said on Second Reading, the Bill is important for consumers. We all recognise that. It merges key consumer bodies and makes a serious attempt to give consumers greater rights when buying or selling their house. I pay special tribute to the work done in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox, a former chair of the NCC who is greatly knowledgeable on this subject. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) who would be handling the Bill. He cannot be in the Chamber today, as I have already explained. He played a big part in Committee. I pay tribute to all those who have taken part in the Bill's proceedings. We cannot be proud of every Bill that goes through this place, but we can be proud of this one; it is a major step forward in consumer protection.
	Consumer protection is best achieved through a spirit of shared responsibility, with the Government, businesses and consumers all working together, although that is not always reflected in reality when businesses fall short of their responsibilities. As the Minister said, it is important that consumers have the means to obtain timely, efficient redress. That is the whole thrust of the Bill. If consumers cannot obtain that redress, we are all failing. It is on the basis of those principles that we approach the Bill.
	We set out a three-point plan when we began our deliberations on the Bill. The first point was to update the definition of estate agency work to include off-plan sales, internet property intermediaries and direct home sales by house builders. As we all recognise, 28 years have passed since the original legislation came into force, and we have had more than enough discussion about estate agents to understand what is in the Bill and what is, sadly, lacking. Secondly, we want to widen the scope of the Estate Agents Act 1979 to cover lettings and the residential property market and, thirdly, to increase the penalty for rogue estate agents to a maximum of 10,000. A maximum of 5,000 was set in 1979 and the figure has been unchanged since. Our belief is that it no longer represents a real penalty for rogue estate agents.
	We recognise that following the Government's farcical efforts to introduce home information packs, they will be more wary of regulation for the housing market, but as I have explained, it is important in respect of the lettings market where there are some vulnerable people. Estate agents would have largely policed HIPs, and although we have regulated HIPs we have not yet completely regulated the estate agents who will administer them. There seems to be a certain irony in that.
	We differ from the Government in how best to ensure that complaints are dealt with quickly and effectively. Redress schemes are at the heart of the Bill, yet they are the last resort of an unhappy consumer. In the first instance, redress should be sought from the company from which goods or services were purchased. Effective complaints procedures at that stage would ensure that more complaints were resolved at the outset, which is surely a desirable objective. That would reduce rather than increase the burden on the new NCC and make for better satisfied consumers, too. Good internal complaints procedures are the best way to protect and empower consumers, yet there is little on the subject in the Bill.
	Existing redress schemes vary greatly, from granting intermediate access to insisting on a three-month wait before the consumer can invoke the services of the ombudsman. Three months is a long time to wait and creates an opportunity for supplier companies to avoid resolving complaints quickly, knowing that the process may turn out to be too long and drawn-out for the consumer to bother pursuing things further. As Members of Parliament, we all know that unless our constituents instruct us to pursue complicated and time-consuming matters on their behalf, they tend to be deterred; they say that it is all too difficult and just go away. It would be unfortunate if that were an inadvertent effect of the Bill.
	Conservative Members believe that companies should have in place effective internal complaints procedures to deal with consumers quickly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has pointed out, a similar model already exists in the financial services sector. The Financial Services Authority requires that membership of the financial ombudsman service is dependent on an organisation's having an appropriate and effective internal complaint-handling function. We hope that a similar system will be replicated by the NCC and the bodies it looks after.
	Initially, the Government made only a small concession towards that approach when the issue was raised in another place. The phrase they introduced in clause 49 was deliberately vague; they required regulators only to
	have regard to...such principles as...the generally accepted principles of best practice.
	That is far from specific and far from instructive. Through guidance to the NCC, we hope that the Government can help to resolve this issue. We are pleased that they have finally accepted the arguments we made in Committee and introduced seven amendments to make it compulsory for regulators to set standards of best practice.
	Our third area of disquiet concerns the independence of the new National Consumer Council. The Government have said that they want the new NCC to be independent and for the relationship between it and the Government to be transparent and accountable. That is a laudable aim, but I fear that the text of the Bill reveals a rather different approach. Clauses 17 to 19 concern reports and advice that the NCC may produce on consumer matters. In each of the circumstances described in the Bill, there is discretion as to whether the reports are made publicly available. When the NCC itself determines that the reports shall be produced, it has discretion to publish. I think that, in this day of openness, there should, on the whole, be a presumption that the NCC should publish all reports unless, as we discussed previously on Report, they are commercially sensitive.
	When the Government ask the NCC to report on specific matters, the Secretary of State chooses whether the public ever get to see what the NCC has to say. This is a serious matter of public accountability and transparency for the consumer. The NCC will receive public funding, but the reports that it provides to the Government are not necessarily, so it seems, to be made available to the very taxpayers who fund it.
	As I have said, we believe that all reports produced by the NCC, unless they cover commercially sensitive information, should be automatically available to the public. That need not be a cost issue, as has been claimed. The documents could simply be made available via the NCC's websitea very simple matter these days. The Minister in the other place argued against that suggestion by claiming that not all such reports would be of interest to consumers, but I fail to see how reports from a public body set up to look after consumers' interests would not be of relevance and interest to consumers. I fail to work out what bizarre leap of logic produced this decision. It is not up to the Government to decide whether the reports are of interest to the consumer; it is up to consumers to decide whether they want to see the reports. If they are published on the website, they will be able to exercise just that choice. It seems a bizarre decision.
	It seems that the Government wish to use the NCC partially for their own purpose, or, at least, that could be the perception. The fact that the NCC will not have the right to publish its own reports goes to the heart of the question of whether the relationship between the Government and the NCC is sufficiently transparent. Conservative Members believe that it is essential that all such reports are published and that the NCC is perceived to be genuinely independent from the Government.
	For years the NCC has been funded by the Government, but it has been unhindered in choosing for itself the focus of the work that it undertakes and then reporting on it as it wished. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a better way to continue in the interests of empowering consumers.
	We have had lengthy debates that have thoroughly examined the Bill, most of whose aims we thoroughly applaud. We hope that the NCC and the supplementary provisions in the Billfor example, on solicited and unsolicited protection for the consumer in part 3that we have hardly discussed today will work out well in practice. We commend the Government for having brought the Bill before the House, and we will not oppose it.

Susan Kramer: We very much support the concept behind the Bill. The debates on it have been a fascinating exercise in constructive cross-party exchange. As a result of the Bill, we can say that consumers will be better protected than they are today.
	I pay tribute to those who have supported us and helped us to understand aspects of the Bill and to try to find ways to improve it.  Which? has been mentioned. I would like to mention the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a number of others that have made particular efforts to make sure that we are well informed. Their information and proposals have always been constructive.
	Today we sound the death knell, in a sense, for Energywatch and Postwatch, but both organisations have played an extraordinary role in supporting and protecting consumers, thanks to the way they have handled complaints and investigated underlying issues. An excellent example was given by the right hon. Member for Coatbridgehe has given me leave not to attempt to pronounce the rest of his constituency name.  [ Interruption. ] Others are more able to pronounce it than I am. The work that those organisations have done to try to expose the issues surrounding energy pricing has earned them the gratitude of a large number of consumers, especially those who are most vulnerable. In many ways, those organisations have set a standard for complaint handling against which the new National Consumer Council and the whole system that has been set up under the Bill will in effect be judged. This is an opportunity for us all to pay tribute to the many individuals who have been so dedicated and have been involved in that process.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who has supported me on the first piece of legislation that I have attempted to take through the House and who has brought so much wisdom and expertise to the issue. From the Lords, I would like to mention Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer andperhaps this is slightly unusualLord Caithness, who sits on the Conservative Benches, but who has been quite an ally in working on the estate agent language, even if he was not necessarily supported by his own party. We value his contribution.
	I appreciated the positive and constructive approach taken by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It was a pleasure to be able to raise an issue and get a straight answer and to feel that the issues that we raised were understood and taken seriously. The atmosphere that he created and the way in which he took the Bill forward have allowed this to be a constructive process and I greatly appreciate that.
	The Government gave way on a number of issues and made a number of improvements in the course of our debates. I will touch on a few of them. In the end, they strengthened the language on sustainable development as a principle of which the new council must take note in exercising its functions. We appreciate that, even though we wish the Government had gone further, given the importance of establishing that in this era. There were many occasions when instructions to the NCC were couched in the language of may rather than must. We appreciate that there was at least one occasion when the shift from may was towards must. I am talking about the measure to require the regulator to prescribe standards for complaint handling. There was clearly a switch in the presumption of what the activity and focus of the NCC should be and we appreciated that.
	We and others, including the Conservatives, were particularly concerned that the penalties that were initially to be levied on an estate agent who refused to join a redress scheme were so paltry as to be almost pitiful and ineffective. The penalty was set initially at 500. The Government moved that to 1,000, which is an improvement. The Conservatives called for 3,000. We wished to have scope for a penalty as high as 10,000 to be levied, particularly for multiple offenders who whenever they are challenged simply keep refusing to do as they are supposed to do and join a redress scheme. At least there was some movement in the right direction. As the Minister will be aware, the context is that the typical fee for an estate agent from the sale of a property is 3,000. We think that the penalty should at least bear some relation to the earnings from carrying out a transaction not covered by the redress scheme.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady's constructive contribution, but does she agree that, as the average sale fee is about 3,000, a maximum penalty set at that amount will be wholly inadequate because it will not deter an estate agent from conducting shoddy business? The penalty should have been several times that amount.

Susan Kramer: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was our position, but his Front-Bench colleagues stuck at 3,000. There was scope for more agreement on that point. If we had had free votes on several issues, we would have seen a stronger outcome in several clauses.
	I have remaining worries as we conclude our proceedings on the Bill. I fully appreciate that the Government mean well, but there has been much discussion about how to handle complaints made by vulnerable consumers and how to ensure that they are able to get adequate compensation and a satisfactory resolution of their problems. The right hon. Member for Makerfield made it clear that he wanted the definition of a vulnerable consumer to be flexible and wide. He gave the example of a widow who might be grieving and thus unable to cope with resolving a problem with an energy company, the Royal Mail or a company covered by the Bill. His example was good, but when we pressed the Government on the way vulnerable consumers would be identifiedwhen we moved into the arena of implementationit became apparent that almost no thought had been given to the matter. The Government might have put themselves into a box from which they will be unable to deliver.
	The NCC will receive information on consumers via the consumer voiceover the telephone. If someone calls with a problem regarding an energy bill, it will be likely that the energy company's records will show whether that person is in receipt of benefits, or on a special tariff that might indicate vulnerability. However, many people will not be on benefits or a special tariff, yet will be vulnerable. In addition, the process will certainly not cover the kind of example cited by the right hon. Member for Makerfield. There will be no special tariff for a grieving widow who is in an especially difficult period of her life. If someone calls the NCC with a problem about the postal service, there will be no existing track record to reveal whether that person is vulnerable.
	When I raised such points before, I was told that questions would be asked during the telephone conversation to expose whether the individual was vulnerable. Do we really think that someone will say on the telephone, Excuse me, but do you have a low IQ or are you vulnerable?, Have you recently been diagnosed with depression by a doctor?, Is your schizophrenia particularly active at the moment? or, Have you lost someone in the family so that you are unable to cope with complex paperwork?? It will be almost impossible to elicit the information necessary over the telephone. I have asked many times what mechanisms will be used to try to identify vulnerable consumers, but I am still waiting for an answer. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
	We are very concerned about the timing of the abolition of Postwatch. The Minister will be aware that 2,500 post offices will be closed over the next 18 months. Postwatch will play an essential part in enabling residents throughout the country to be consulted so that they can raise points to influence whether a closure goes through. Postwatch has a regional structure, whereas the new NCC does not. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed the verbal assurances we have been given that Postwatch will be left largely intact until the closure process is completed. Is the Minister aware that members of Postwatch, whose role is so critical, will inevitably be distracted by whether they are about to receive a redundancy notice. Morale will be undermined, and in this critical period it will be hard to achieve the focus necessary to protect consumers and ensure that their voices are heard in the closure of their local post offices, which will have broad consequences for them and their communities.
	We want stronger assurances from the Minister that small businesses will be recognised. The NCC can pay attention to small businesses, but nothing requires it to do so. Many small businesses fear that, over time, they will be lost in the distractions of the many other activities in which the NCC will be involved.
	We have today debated residential lettings, direct sales and off-plan sales. I join the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in regretting the fact that the Bill does not address the issues far more powerfully. We are glad that a review is under way. It is focusing on lettings rather than direct or off-plan sales, whereas we believe it could have dealt with the whole problem. All that the review offers at the moment is delay, with no assurance that action will follow.
	A great opportunity has been missed to require training and qualifications for estate agents. I cannot understand why our proposals have been ignored. I have not heard a coherent argument against such a basic framework for individuals who affect the most important spending decision families make. How can we enact a Bill on estate agents without at least requiring them

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are debating what is in the Bill, rather than what has been omitted.

Susan Kramer: I shall close by asking the Minister to ensure that the Bill's implementation is closely monitored. The Bill sets up a sequence of redress schemes, which, as the hon. Member for the Cotswold eloquently pointed out, are designed to deal with the problem after it has arisen. Consumers are unlikely to pursue a complaint to redress unless the process is easy, positive and offers encouragement. The Minister will have seen the energy supply ombudsman's forms, which are not easy to complete with the detail necessary to pursue a complaint. We suspect that most redress schemes will refuse to provide a deadlock letter enabling consumers to pursue their complaint for at least three monthsa long and delayed process. Ultimately, it is easier for people to drop out of the system.
	Ofgem is reviewing the work of the energy supply ombudsman, but a minimal number of complaints survive to the point of redress. We know that Energywatch is about to disappear, but, as the Minister will know, in the past six months it handled about 32,000 complaints; in the same period, the energy supply ombudsman handled 321. Scaling up now to deal with a greater number of complaints means that the process will have to be closely monitored. Strangely enough, even though Energywatch has no power to deliver compensation, the average compensation achieved by it was 125 per case. The ombudsman, who has all the power, delivered only 80, on average.
	If we can have assurances about monitoring and review, that will greatly aid my confidence and that of my colleagues in supporting the Bill. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity.

Stephen Timms: With the leave of the House, I welcome the brief debate that we have had. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) for his generous remarks, his contribution to the debates in the Public Bill Committee and this afternoon, and the welcome that he expressed for provisions in the Bill. He is right to pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer)

Tom Clarke: I am extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind remarks. In response to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who led for the Opposition, may I say that if there is a discussion about the location of offices, new offices, especially pursuing policies that we welcome, will be very welcome in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He was rather unfairly chided by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I saidrather quickly, perhaps, but I did say itthat there would be an office in Glasgow, as well as in the other locations that were mentioned.
	My right hon. Friend was right to pay tribute to the work of Energywatch and to remind the House again of the importance of serving vulnerable consumers well. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also rightly drew attention to the importance of the work of Postwatch. I agree with her about the importance of those arrangements during the current closure programme. I was the Minister with responsibility for post offices during the urban reinvention programme so I know very well how important the work of Postwatch has been in that context. I can give the hon. Lady and the House the reassurance that those arrangements will continue until the end of the programme. We certainly will maintain the expertise in the energy and postal sectors that has been so valuable to us and to the country.
	I welcome the constructive character of the debate, reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold just now. I am grateful to him for his welcome for the appointment of the chair of the new National Consumer Council. We have explored some disagreements this afternoon, and some of them were set out again in his speech and that of the hon. Lady. I am happy to join both hon. Members in their tributes to their hon. Friends in this place and the other place for the contributions to the debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Richmond Park raised an important point. We all know from our constituency work that it is difficult to succeed with the ombudsman. She quoted figures from the compensation attained by Energywatch. It would be a tragedy if the Bill led to a weakening of consumer protection, if the ombudsman redress schemes did not work properly. Will the Minister continuously monitor that?

Stephen Timms: I am happy to give both hon. Members the assurance that we will do so, and to reaffirm that the new council will continue to carry out the central functions currently undertaken by the sectoral bodies. We do not want to lose any of the success that has been achieved.
	In response to the specific point about publication of reports, it will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to publish reports that he or she has commissioned from the new council. That allows for the preservation of confidentiality, if need be, but the council is free to publish its own reports.
	I can confirm that we will monitor implementation. On the point about the level of the penalty for estate agents, we envisage the cap set in the Bill. I remind the House that it will be possible to consider the fitness of an estate agent to continue to practise, and a prohibition order may be made against such an agent, banning them from doing estate agency work. The sanctions are potentially much more severe than simply the level of the penalty.
	The Bill provides a significant boost for consumers, strengthening their position, as Members across the House have recognised, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PETITIONS

Sale of Buildings (Hammersmith and Fulham)

Andrew Slaughter: I wish to present three petitions with a common theme, namely opposition to the forced sale of a number of buildings provided for the use of community and voluntary groups in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The petitioners in each case protest the decision of the Conservative-controlled council to sell those long-standing and irreplaceable resources for local communities in my constituency, particularly because the decisions were taken in secret without the users and tenants of the buildings being consulted or informed of the sales and without any thought being given to the future of the groups to be evicted.
	First, I present a petition of 281 residents of the Wormholt estate in Shepherd's Bush concerning the disposal and proposed demolition of the former Wormholt librarya building of merit on the council's own classificationwhich is operated by the Wormholt tenants and residents association, chaired by Rene Taylor, to provide a range of services primarily for elderly residents of the estate.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities to use her powers to reverse the decision of Hammersmith and Fulham Council to close and dispose of the former Wormholt Library, now Wormholt Tenants and Residents Community Centre, Hemlock Road.
	Secondly, I present the petition of 287 residents of College park, an isolated area in the north-east of my constituency, concerning the disposal of the College park community centre, which has been a public building for over a century, is operated by the College park residents association, chaired by Maureen Clark, and runs a weekly youth club, pensioners club and the Happy Bunnies mother and toddler club, among other community events.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities to use her powers to reverse the decision to close College Park Community Centre.
	Thirdly, I present the petition of 628 users of the Hut Association, based at 59 Godolphin road in Shepherd's Bush. The Hut Association, run by Jacqueline Boyce, is an umbrella group providing services to families, many of whom are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly the much-loved parents and toddlers group.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities to use her powers to reverse the decision of Hammersmith and Fulham Council not to renew the lease of 59 Godolphin Road.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn [Mark Tami.]

Susan Kramer: Let me say to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has drawn the short straw in having to reply for the Government, that I appreciate that, since the earlier debate ended well before its expected time, he has had to step into the breach. Under those circumstances, if I raise issues that are unfamiliar to him, will he do me the kindness of investigating them? We are considering significant matters that have an impact on some of the most vulnerable peoplecertainly some of the most vulnerable childrenin our society.
	I want to consider a subsection of the issues that are covered by today's debate: assessment and treatment of families with severe mental health disorders. I was drawn into the matter because the Cassell hospital is in my constituency. It is a specialist hospital, which deals with, assesses and treats families with severe mental health disorders. It also assesses and treats adults and adolescents and is considered exceptional in its field. It provides a service to a vast area of southern England.
	I was brought into the matter originally because the Cassell hospital had to amalgamate its adult and adolescent wards. I innocently assumed that I would come across the more general problem of cutbacks in spending on mental health that local primary care trusts' financial difficulties had forced on several areas. There is an element of that, but it is not the key problem.
	I came to understand, through being exposed to experiences at the Cassell, that a major issue was a reinterpretation of the Children Act 1989. Section 38(6) requires:
	Where the court makes an interim care order, or interim supervision order, it may give such directions (if any) as it considers appropriate with regard to the medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment of the child.
	In the early days of implementing the clause, it was interpreted to mean that assessment inevitably led to treatment. In other words, when a problem was assessed and a treatment could be prescribed, it was expected that the treatment would be followed through and funded by the local authority or the PCT, whichever was appropriate.
	In 2005, a court case that was brought before the Lords of Appeal overturned that specific interpretation. Consequently, the courts concluded that the requirement to fund affected assessment but not treatment. It has changed the whole way in which families with severe mental health disorders are treated and managed in the UK. That decision by the Lords of Appeal in November 2005 reinstated the distinction between medical or psychiatric assessment and the treatment of the child.
	Although that sounds like a nuance in the law, it runs foul of current practice in child psychiatry. Medical treatments under the NHS in the circumstances that we are considering are not neatly captured because psycho-social treatments are frequently the approach that needs to be taken. That is why specialist centres, such as the Cassell, are so engaged in the process.
	Let me provide some sense of the impact of the case. A test case, generally known as Ray G, was one of the cases that shows the importance of linking assessment and treatment. It is the case of a family who were treated at the Cassell hospital. The mother was not initially able to provide the child with the care it needed, due to her own traumatic history of neglect. Initially, the child therefore had a fraught relationship with the mother.
	Under a court order, the familymother, father and childengaged in an assessment, and treatment followed that assessment. When that transition into treatment was contested by the local authoritywe all recognise that treatment is expensivethe High Court approved the treatment and the family is now doing exceedingly well. The child is flourishing and the family remains intact. The social justification for assessment and treatment being combined is well illustrated by that instance.
	Following the reinterpretation of the law, however, families can be assessed but, if the local authority chooses not to fund the treatmentas they frequently do, because treatment is expensivethe family is then sent back into the circumstances that caused the court to look at their case in the first place. They are returned to the local authority, where services are typically inadequate.
	Another case has been brought to my attention. I do not have a pseudonym for the person concerned, so I shall not use any names. An 18-year-old mother had suffered extreme emotional and physical neglect at home, as is frequently a key factor in such cases. When she became pregnant, she hoped for something better for her child. Initially, she cared well for the baby, but as the baby grew more demanding, that care fluctuated and raised the concerns of the local authority.
	Mother and baby were removed to a foster care placement, but the concerns continued unabated. There were scant local resources to provide support to the mother, who had never lived away from home. She became so distraught that she threw the child on the bed in despair. The result was a court attendance and an assessment at a specialist centrethe Cassell hospital, where most of my information on this issue has come from.
	There, the mother's difficult history of neglect and deprivation was gradually understood, explored and worked through, as was her wish to provide something different for her daughter. The history was so protracted as to warrant a specialist investigation. The child began to flourish, and the mother engaged well. At the end of the assessment, a recommendation for a move to treatment was made by the clinical staff.
	The local authority refused to fund the treatment, however, and demanded an immediate return to the original, unsafe, foster care placement that had previously proved inadequate. That was in no way supportive of the child's experience or in keeping with the welfare of the family or the child, given that it would have involved an abrupt change of setting and the loss of relationships with the staff. The mother was distraught at the thought of returning to the place in which she had not coped before. In this case, the Cassell made the decision to fund the treatment for free. As a consequence, mother and daughter are now doing well. They have returned to the community and are out of the care system altogether. They have a positive future ahead of them.
	These are obviously difficult and complex cases. The Government clearly expressed their intent in supporting the original interpretation of section 38(6) of the Children Act, in which treatment followed assessment. The collective resources of the NHS and the local authorities were focused on keeping the family together and giving it a chance to recover from an environment of severe mental health disorder. It seems to me that we cannot read the Children Act or listen to the language of Ministers without believing that that is the intent.
	Since the reversal of the interpretation of that section in 2005, however, the Government have taken no new action and introduced no new legislation to reinstate their original intent. The consequence has been that, in specialist hospitals such as the Cassell, families are being assessed as capable of treatment and in need of treatment, but the treatment is not being funded and the families are being returned to the local community. As I understand it, the courts themselves have now become inhibited. Judges are asking, If the treatment cannot follow the assessment, why am I sending this family for assessment in the first place? So the assessment process itself is breaking down.
	When I first began to look into this matter, I thought that I was dealing with the standard funding issues relating to mental health. When this case was raised, however, I became aware that I was dealing with a piece of legislation. As I have discussed the matter with colleagues, I have begun to understandperhaps this is new only to methat I am entering a minefield of problems. We are starting to hear of cases in which children are being very easily removed from families in which mental health issues have been raised. If those issues are evident in the form of neglect or even abuse, they raise massive concerns with social services in the local authority.
	Rather than trying to treat the family and enable it to overcome the problems and become successful, children are simply being removed from home and put into foster care or adopted. That is surely not the purpose of the 1989 Act or the Government's intent.
	My goal is to ask the Minister to become a champion for those families. I ask him to investigate what is happening on all those issues and to consider amending the law so that its original purpose and original interpretation, with which the Government were satisfied, is reinstated. I also ask him to go further and take up the issue of families with severe mental health disorders.
	The Minister will be well aware that when children are removed from a family, even the most difficult family, it is a highly traumatic experience. Many would argue that there is almost no way to repair the damage that is done to a child who is removed. Sometimes it is inevitably the necessary and better option, but there is a general agreement, both across most of the professions and in the language used by the Government, that if the family can be helped to recover and restore itself to a positive environment, that is better for the child and family as a whole. That is why I took the opportunity offered by this debate to raise such issues.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) on securing the debate. The problem may well affect a relatively small number of families in our society, but that does not make it any less important. Enduring and severe mental health issues are a challenge for the individual child and young person's development, but they can also have a major effect on family dynamics, and relationships. We should be trying to create a system that not only assesses but treats a family holistically and does everything that it can to support a family to get through and to cope with those psychiatric or psychological problems, enabling the family to remain together. Unfortunately, in some circumstances it is in the interests of both the child and the family for the child or young person to be removed from that home environment. However, in many circumstances, with the right preventive and holistic support, that child and young person can be supported to remain within the family environment.
	The hon. Lady has identified a major problem as a consequence of a court judgment. It has changed some of the decisions that have been made within the health service in terms not only of the assessment but of the treatment of families in such circumstances.
	In recent timesI should put the matter in contextwe have made major progress in respect of mental health services for children and young people. Child and adolescent mental health services teams have built up in every part of the country, from a very low base, after the Government set a target and, as a result, there is a much more comprehensive range of child and adolescent mental health services in every community. The Mental Health Bill, which finally passed all its stages in this House yesterday, deals with age-appropriate treatment for young people with mental health problems. That is another advance with regard to mental health provision.
	I acknowledge, however, that the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly and possibly an unintended consequence. The ministerial team at the Department of Health has undergone a major change, so it is not entirely clear who will be responsible for which policy area, but that will be finalised today or tomorrow. I assure the hon. Lady, however, that I will take responsibility for ensuring that the Department looks specifically at the consequences of the court judgment, its impact on the way services have related to families and, where appropriate and necessary, that the Department makes changes to ensure that those families have access to the kind of treatment that would give them the best chance of getting through those difficult and stressful life experiences and of coming out the other end with as decent a life as possible.
	I do not want to go on any longer than is necessary. The hon. Lady has raised an issue of import and significance and I give her and the House a commitment that we will take it seriously and respond directly to her in the next few weeks on the progress that we have been able to make.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.